The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 26, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

 

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Ms. Patire, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, and, Ms. Barto. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Brigette Bogart; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Giordano and Ms. Altano were not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – None were reported

KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14,15 – Public Hearing continued from May 16, 2017 without prejudice to the Board – To be carried to June 26, 2017 without prejudice to the Board –

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Our next item will be KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25 ‑ 27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 

This is a public hearing continued from June 6, 2017, without prejudice to the board.

Okay. MR. TUVEL.

1. MR. TUVEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jason Tuvel, attorney for the applicant. This is our sixth public hearing on this preliminary and final major site plan application. We've presented all of our witnesses, I believe all of the board's professionals have also testified, and where we left it off at the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, we were going to open it up to the public, I guess it's for public testimony, if any, and then public comment. And then after that ‑‑ well, I have all my witnesses here, by the way, as well. After that, I'd like to give hopefully a brief summation, and we can go to the deliberations.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Sure. That's correct, where we're at right now.

So, at this point, we're at public testimony, and this isn't public comment, this is where you want to be a witness to present evidence that's rebutting anything that was presented by the applicant, you would state your name and address, and then you would testify, and then you would be able to be cross‑examined. So, is there anyone from the public that wants to be a witness for public testimony? (No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Seeing there's no one, we'll move on to public comment.

Can I have a motion?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can I ask a question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: My understanding where we left off at our last meeting is that there was going to be some confirmation of the traffic counts because there were some discrepancies, and I don't know if I'm misremembering, but I just wanted to know where we're at with that, because it was a significant discrepancy, and I believe that everybody used that same report from Gordon Meth.

1. MR. FERANDA: I believe that was brought up for discussion at the last hearing. I believe where it was left off, there was discussion about going and recounting the intersections, but doing that after the building was re‑occupied or occupied, so that there would be analysis and new numbers once it was occupied. I did check my note. If they go out and count now, they're confirming existing conditions, which may or may not be similar to what was done in that original traffic study, the numbers that they used for the analysis. The discussion went from there, and my notes are sketchy, I'm going partially by my memory, and I would ask others to see if this is what they recollect from last hearing, that after the KS development was occupied, they would then do a study to verify the actual traffic patterns and confirm the conditions at the intersections. And if there was mitigation necessary, and this is something that's commonly required in development, that there be ‑‑ it's called a "look back" or to check to confirm exactly what's going on, and if mitigation is needed because of excess traffic and it hadn't been projected in the report, that can be accounted for and mitigated.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that was not my recollection, nor would have been what I was looking for. When the issue was raised, it was the concern that there was a discrepancy in the traffic counts, and it was actually a discrepancy in what you had stated, there was a discrepancy and the potential discrepancy in the traffic counts. At the time, I suggested and recommended that we would want to go back beforehand and have those traffic counts physically confirmed, because that could change the grading or the rating of that particular intersection significantly.

So, taking a "look back" wouldn't show what kind of impact occurred, if in fact the numbers that we were relying on initially as part of this exercise were inaccurate. So, I would never have asked that. I specifically recall asking to have those counts physically confirmed, and I ask anyone to weigh in on that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I agree with the mayor on that. I think we need to take a look at that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think there was some mention of the counts for existing conditions, but the counts will change with the signal improvements. I think you were mentioning that things will change, and then if you change the signals, it will change what else comes through.

1. MR. FERANDA: Once you add the signal and you get the phasing and the actuation, things will be adjusted, and, therefore, the traffic patterns for the proposed conditions certainly would be different than the existing conditions. That doesn't mean the volumes will be any less, certainly the volumes would be the same or more, as they increase over time, but the suggestion at that meeting, and I think there was discussion that re‑looking, reevaluating the intersection under the proposed traffic conditions would be more worthwhile, because it would then take into account whatever proposed traffic would then be on the roadway.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just don't understand what the logic would be in going back and doing an analysis, when your baseline is inaccurate or potentially there was a discrepancy. You're using a starting point that's inaccurate, so we don't know what the difference may or may not be. We don't know if it's an improvement or a negligible improvement. We don't know. Because there was a question about the discrepancies on the starting point, and I don't understand how we proceed under those circumstances. I fully anticipated coming in here this evening and verifying certain intersections to confirm those counts and what the ratings are of the intersection.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Andy, I think the other issue was, if we were to look at the new reconfigurations, that would mean we would have to have all five lights reconfigured. In order to figure that out, I'm not sure we could even do that, you know.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I thought we were coming in here and going to have that added information. I'm thoroughly surprised that we don't have that, whatever happened.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think it was an "impact analysis" we were looking to see today, if my note is correct, and I may have had it written down incorrectly, but I was under the same impression.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: David, do you have any comments?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have any input, Jason?

1. MR. TUVEL: Yes. I read the transcript on the last meeting. What MR. FERANDA says is correct regarding the "look back" issue. We discussed that being a possible condition of approval, although there wasn't a consensus on, but MR. FERANDA is correct, on certain projects that is sometimes a condition where you have a look back after full construction, and if the mitigation needs to be changed one way or the other, maybe too much mitigation was put in or too little mitigation was put in, it's reevaluated at a certain time. That was discussed, as well as the impacts of the signal at Franklin and Broad, and how the signal timing changing would improve the level of service. I specifically checked my notes just now. There was no request at the end of the hearing for any additional information or else we would have been all over that to make sure that was done for this meeting.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I think I made the request. There was no specific request at the end of the meeting. I thought we had an understanding that that was going to happen.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, can anything be subject to confirming counts and things like that and then working on something or actually ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Well, the counts could be material to consider. Usually a look back is for a year, in that sense, but I remember there was a discussion on the discrepancy. It's in the transcript, as to the inconsistent statements made by the engineer that put together the traffic study, I guess it was what, 3, 4 years ago now.
2. MR. TUVEL: There was no discrepancy noted in the report. The report that was prepared by Gordon Meth, there was no discrepancy there.

What MR. FERANDA stated at the last meeting was that he observed additional queuing. That was the only issue that was raised. There was no discrepancy that the report was flawed or anything like that or that there were different methodologies or something like that.

1. MR. MARTIN: No, I agree no different methodologies, it's the data that was the concern. I remember that being raised. I remember there was an issue as to, I think, both engineers, your engineer and Andrew agreed that there was a discrepancy in data.
2. MR. TUVEL: No, that's not true. We did not agree there was any discrepancy in any data.
3. MR. MARTIN: I believe that they cited inconsistencies.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Inconsistencies and a discrepancy, because the queue, there was a difference in that, and that would have changed, if my recollection is accurate, it would have changed the grading of that, that that would be correct then. It would have changed the grading of that particular intersection, and I'm just saying I believe that the board has the right to rely on accurate information. And, for that reason, I did ask that the counts be physically confirmed and ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: To me, Mayor, what you're talking about is a design issue, if it's the grading that you're worried about. So, as a condition of approval, if there needs to be any grading change as a result of any further counts that are done, we can certainly do that. That's not an issue. But there was no discrepancy noted, Mayor, in terms of the report that was provided. All I remember from last meeting and from reading the transcript is that MR. FERANDA said when he was out there himself, he observed some queuing of the intersection and that is what was discussed. And if we need to do some counts to look at the grading issue, we're happy to do that and work with the board and the traffic expert as a condition, that's not an issue.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm just not sure how we ‑‑ well, it's relevant to how we proceed, right? I mean, I don't know, I guess.

1. MR. TUVEL: We're in full agreement with all of the comments noted in both traffic engineers' reports. There were two, this is unusual, you had two reports issued by your traffic expert on this project, you had an on‑site traffic expert report that dealt with everything on‑site and all traffic, that dealt with the intersection adjacent to the property as well as the intersections that were a block or two away. We agreed to comply with that report. There was a full analysis done from a traffic perspective.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Jason, can I ask you a question. You said a "look back," so this is what we should do now even as a condition of approval, we look back, and if it is worse, what happens then? I mean ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: I would defer to your traffic expert on that, but if there was additional mitigation that was required, that would be something that your traffic engineer would recommend.
2. MR. MARTIN: And the applicant would pay for that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, and the applicant would pay for that?

1. MR. TUVEL: Yes, if it was related to our pro rata share and improvements that we were doing, that's correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: That's correct. Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Would that be a suitable way to address that?

1. MR. FERANDA: That is typically how it's done as a condition that the mitigation be provided by the applicant for whatever contribution they're causing.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Let me just take the sentiments of the board as to proceeding.

Dave, do you want to proceed tonight or you feel apprehensive or ‑‑

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't feel apprehensive. I feel we can go forward.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I think as a condition of approval we need to do this analysis beforehand, because we need to understand what that is. And I guess my question is, if we find it's worse, what does that mean from a cost standpoint, from our standpoint and the applicant's standpoint, how is that apportioned, is my concern. And I'm not sure what we would do, to be honest with you. And then even with a look back later, let's assume, it becomes worse, we need to understand what that would mean as well from a ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: As it relates to the improvements that we're doing, if there was indeed an issue where we had to provide further mitigation as to what we need to do and your traffic engineer and our traffic engineer recommended additional mitigation after a look back on aspects of the project that we constructed and we felt were our responsibility, then, yes, they become our responsibility, if that was a condition that the board placed on the application.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. I guess I'm okay, if that's the way it would work on this.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor, how do you feel?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Go down the row.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances, how do you feel? 

1. MS. BARTO: You know, I have some reservation about going forward without having full, you know, all the information that our board has requested. And while we're talking pro rata shares, what does that mean for the village? We've had these discussions about the traffic impacting not only just that one intersection but the entire street going down Franklin; how much money we're going to have to expend possibly on the timing of other lights? I think we need to be fully informed before we take any action tonight, and that's my opinion.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

Melanie?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I've been vocally concerned about some of that stuff as well, and I'd sooner see us ‑‑ you know, I know it's frustration to everybody, but I'd sooner see all of the information. I think what we had discussed was something about levels of service E that currently exist, adding another unit, adding another apartment and other buildings nearby and the retail space involved with this one. I always think I'd rather err on the side of caution and see everything. We have to answer to the residents. I'd rather be able to say exactly why we choose what we choose, so...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So as far as the traffic reports, I don't question the traffic reports.  I recall, I think Andrew mentioning he noticed queuing from Wilsey Square to under the train trestle, which is a good observation, you probably all noticed it, but it's one thing to have kind of anecdotal observations and to have it in the report. My other concern, on a grander scale, is what's happening on Franklin. We have the application here, we have a drive‑through Starbucks that's going to contribute to traffic, we have other multifamily housing. So whatever was analyzed by Gordon Meth previously, I don't think took all this into account. That's my concern. We can kind of see the train coming down the track and all these pieces aren't fully put together, you can't make the puzzle, all the pieces are there, it's not really understanding what's going to happen. Like this is a side note, something that just might be a question for Andrew, when we talk about cost of upgrading a traffic light is like $400,000, which you could build a single‑family detached dwelling for $400,000, it's outrageous. So I don't know if there's, like, new technology coming or different ways to do it, if we could reprogram a light that doesn't need to be $400,000. It just seems outrageous and unreasonable. I don't know about the full technology or what's going on, I guess I challenge the technology there, maybe there's a better solution. We all want to save efficient intersections, but for $400,000, it just seems absurd.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Are you for proceeding or not proceeding?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I have some reservations, but I don't question traffic reports, and I don't think we should throw them out because he noticed something, I noticed something. I don't think that's enough to throw out a report for an engineer who has been qualified. We spent hours vetting those reports, I think they're okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So that's a yes on proceeding?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I guess so, with some reservations.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, I think it's a valid concern, traffic always concerns us on this.

And I think the look back is the best way to analyze it, because there's going to be stuff happening, as I said, and I think certain things can be done, and it might have to be after we know what the counts are and things like that.

1. MR. TUVEL: We are willing to work with the board. The applicant is willing to work with the board and the village on the impact issue, as well as any additional information on the improvements we are doing as part of the process as a condition of approval.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Can I mention one more thing?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Jason just slipped in there at the end, which I guess was an important detail, we talked about the look back, Andrew would make recommendations, but he slipped in your engineer would have to agree with the recommendations, and that becomes quite subjective. I mean, obviously you can defend your position but ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Joel, that's not how our resolutions are written. They would have to comply with the board engineer's request, that's it.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I feel a little bit better.

1. MR. MARTIN: 27 years of doing this.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I appreciate Joel, Vice chairman's comments. Actually I agree, I think we have a lot of the pieces of the puzzle, but those pieces of the puzzle haven't been connected, and maybe when we try to connect them, they'll be a mess and it won't work, but I'm comfortable, and I do have a question for Andy, in that the light at the corner of Broad and Franklin, that's the one that actually had to be moved to the opposite corner. Was that the one that had to physically be moved? There was something about that light.

1. MR. FERANDA: There's a signal controller at the box that actually runs the intersection.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

1. MR. FERANDA: It's shown on the plans to be relocated. And without that box, once it gets moved, basically you have to redo the intersection. You're upgrading the box, you're putting it in a new location, so something has to be done at that point. When you move the part of the intersection, the wires all have to be redone to the signal heads.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And I guess that's more costly?

1. MR. FERANDA: Once you touch that controller box, it's more costly, yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So then my next question is: In terms of that particular signal box being moved, if somebody is touching that, whose responsibility is it based on the requirements or by law, whose responsibility is it if they touch that light to pay for it? Is there any requirement?

1. MR. FERANDA: It's shown on the plans as proposed to be relocated; therefore, I'm looking at it as part of the proposed plans and part of what needs to be done for the development.

So "proposed" means it's part of their plans for improvements at the intersections.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right, but there's no requirement from the DOT or anyone whose responsibility it is if they touch a light?

1. MR. FERANDA: In this case, it's county jurisdiction, but the county defers to Ridgewood, so it's really Ridgewood's call. It's Ridgewood's ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're in control of that signal.

1. MR. FERANDA: That's correct.
2. MR. SCHEIBNER: Why does the signal box have to be moved?
3. MR. FERANDA: Because of its location and because of the way I guess the grading for the site and other features. I know it was in the corner where the playground was going to be located.
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: The amenity area?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The amenity area, right.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: But the signal box itself is in the public right‑of‑way.
2. MR. FERANDA: I believe it is.
3. MR. TUVEL: Yes. Our traffic engineer is saying yes.
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: So changes to the grading would actually change the grading in the public right‑of‑way?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think what the mayor was getting at, if someone touches it, they pay for it, don't they? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, that's what I was getting at, but I guess now that Dave has asked that question, it's a question that should be responded to, because that's I guess that was always in my mind as an ancillary question.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So what was the response?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: According to the site plan, the existing signal control box or pole is right at the part of the curvature of the proposed exiting curb, and it's shown to be relocated back away from the curb by approximately, I'd say, like, 5, 6 feet, which would make sense because that would minimize its chance of being snagged by an exiting vehicle.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, has there been other developments of any sort where they had to move the signal box and that the person developing it had to pay for it? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not recently. Not in my tenure with the village. We haven't had significant developments at signalized intersections, until these multifamily housing applications.

This signal is a village signal, so any proposed relocation would have to be done to my satisfaction. I have to review it and sign off on it on behalf of the village.

1. MR. MARTIN: I think this one is fairly simple, Jason. I don't think you disagree with the box and the signal, the developer pays for it. If they're going to regrade the right‑of‑way because you have to do this, the developer pays for it.
2. MR. TUVEL: Whatever is legally required.
3. MR. MARTIN: Even better than that, it's an engineering issue, it's a grading, and you'll follow that.
4. MR. TUVEL: Sure.
5. MR. MARTIN: And if it has to be moved because of the development.
6. MR. TUVEL: And it's on our plans.
7. MR. MARTIN: That's not a tangential. That's almost a direct. I mean, that's pretty easy, shooting at that, right? You got to move a signal, you pay for it; you got to change the grading, the civil engineer for the developer will mention the grading is right. We're talking five years down the road, it gets a little bit ‑‑
8. MR. TUVEL: If it's on our plans, then we're responsible for constructing it.
9. MR. MARTIN: Yes, that seems pretty easy.
10. MR. TUVEL: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Does that mean paying for the full light?

1. MR. MARTIN: Whatever has to be constructed in the light world, they would have to deal with that. If it's something on Route 17 that has an effect and we have evidence about it, there may be a debate, but I see that pretty close to the problem.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: And I'm sure, I mean, Chris has gone over with the engineers for the developer, the grading has to be done properly so the site can runoff properly.
2. MR. TUVEL: There is no question it is going to be done properly as per the board engineer's requirements.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So it's all stipulations?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I guess the consensus is move it along. Can I have a motion to open it up to the public comment? Do I have a motion?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: So moved.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave, and Melanie seconds.

Call the roll. A yes vote will be to open up to public comment. (At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a unanimous vote.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're at the public comment portion, and if anyone wants to make a public comment, they can come up to the lectern there and state your name and address. I guess we'll put it at four minutes per person, and then we'll just keep proceeding. And if you have additional to say, we'll hear you. Okay.

1. MR. GLAZER: Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue.

I was at the previous meeting, and I do recall MAYOR KNUDSEN making this request regarding the traffic, and I don't understand why this would be continuing at all. It's very upsetting for me. I feel like the goalpost had suddenly moved, and that's not fair and that's not right. Now, outside of that, I want to share a very brief anecdote. After the superstorm in 2012, we had a 100‑foot‑tall tree that fell in the back of our yard. It landed and destroyed my kids' swing set but it also went into the other yard. Now, by law, I am not responsible for the damage that happened in my neighbor's yard and I'm not responsible for the removal of the tree in his yard, all I'm responsible for is cleaning up my yard. So I spoke with my neighbor about this. And my neighbor said, "Well, that's the law, but you know what the right thing to do is." I said, "Yes, I do." So I had the tree removed from his yard and from my yard, because it's the right thing to do, because I don't hide behind the law. Because sometimes when you do the right thing, it's what you call doing something for the common good. And what I don't see here is doing the right thing. 

Doing the right thing means I'm not going to do what's expected of me, what's required of me through the law. Doing the right thing is okay. I want to build something here, and it's going to impact the community, and it's going to cost taxpayers money so that I can do what I'm going to do. I'm willing to cover that. That's what doing the right thing is. So I present this to the developer at hand this evening as something to consider. Yes, we can hide behind the law. We can say, well, we're just going to do what's expected of the law, nothing more, nothing less, or we can do the right thing. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you, MR. GLAZER. Anyone else want to make public comment? State your name and address.

1. MS. TARZIAN: Linda Tarzian, 576 Highland Avenue, Ridgewood; a 29‑year resident of the village, this little village that I love. I would like to ask each one of you, do you want this to become a Hackensack? With these four developments, I know this is public comment, these four developments are going to turn this town into a Hackensack. When I am trying to get from the west side of town into the beloved downtown, it takes me about four lights and about 10 minutes at least. If you add 66 units or 64 units at the Ken Smith facility, what is that going to do with only one lane going each way? And I know it's been discussed, but I don't know if the people here have understood the impact for an ambulance or police car. There will be no way for them to get through. The quality of life: We chose to move to Ridgewood for the small‑town feel. These four developments are going to totally change that negatively, in my perception. If someone proposes to build a prison here, do you have to do it? If someone proposed to put a zoo on the Ken Smith facility, do you have to do it, if it was part of the loophole that was created in that short period? Is this the future look you want for this town? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MS. TARZIAN.

1. MS. LOVING: Good evening. Anne Loving, 342 S. Irving Street. Just a few things I wanted to comment about this development. First thing, just in general about the traffic, it's just such a horrible strip along there. And COUNCILMAN VOIGT has been really clear and I completely agree with him about all the traffic lights that are going to be messed up because of the traffic coming in and out of this development. I do not understand how it can possibly be written in that there could be a look back a year or so later that. I mean, it just seems to me, it would have to be that a few million dollars would have to be put in escrow in order to possibly correct the mess. You talked about having the lights on timers, but the one right by the train trestle is going to be ‑‑ I forget what the word is ‑‑ activated by a pedestrian, so that's going to throw the timer off. So, to me, the timing is going to be off, it's going to be a nightmare. I do not understand how we could revolve that with a look back. I have concerns about water. We have so many issues with water shortage in this town, and you're adding all these units. I do not understand how we can have increased usage in water and not be worrying about that. I've heard that this is not going to be affecting the schools, the police, the emergency services, fire department. I don't understand how that's possible. I mean, you add 66 units with maybe four people or more per unit, I think that there's going to be a big impact. There was much talk about walkability, this location being very walkable. I think that's completely bogus. Everybody has cars. Everybody has cars, and people are going to be driving. Yeah, some people will commute by train, no doubt about that, but I think that everybody there is going to have a car, and I think the argument about the walkability is bogus. If there's going to be retail on the ground floor, people are going to be driving in and out. I also have huge concerns about the sanitary sewer. You know, the way I understood it from the discussions in the last two meetings was that the applicant would be responsible for the pipe as far as the street, but then the pipe going all the way down the street and I guess turning the corner and heading over to Glen Rock is going to be, I guess, the village's responsibility? We were told at the last meeting or the meeting before that the applicant would have to verify if the sanitary sewerage flow was adequate. Well, when? You know, after it's occupied? After everybody's flushing? You know, so I hope that that's going to be added in, so that if the sanitary sewer pipe blows down, you know, by Maple Avenue, I mean, that we don't have to pay for that.
2. MR. CAFARELLI: One minute remaining.
3. MS. LOVING: Thank you. Okay. Basically, what I see is that there's going to be an unquantifiable increase in cost to the taxpayers for this, with zero benefit to the taxpayers. This is going to cost us possibly huge amounts of money for traffic remediation, for sewerage remediation, for schools, police, fire, and the only person who is going to benefit is the developer; certainly not the taxpayers. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MS. LOVING.

Anyone else?

1. MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road, Ridgewood.

I guess I want to begin by saying, I support a lot of the discussion you guys have had today. I support everything I've heard from the residents tonight. I want to begin by saying something that occurred to me the last meeting that you guys ‑‑ you know, first off, thank you for taking on such a hard job right now. Everybody here respects what you did and took on at such a difficult time and have been doing for so many years, but you guys are the Planning Board, you are not the Applicant Board, and there's a big difference. I've heard still unanswered questions from MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, board members Barto, Williams, and I feel like with some of this information you might be a week or two away from having all the questions answered you need to really make the right decision. The last meeting was several hours on off‑site improvements and traffic, and a lot of questions were raised and they really weren't answered yet, and some of them potentially could be answered later, some you're going to find out new information once the building is built, but some of them need to be known ahead of time. You guys have a requirement to know, have a better handle on what the cost of off‑site improvements are going to be, before you make a determination on a vote, and I don't think you have the information yet, especially on traffic. Some of the other stuff, sewer, I haven't heard discussions as far as sewer. Without a better answer to the Planning Board's residents and Andrew's questions, and you did, Andrew, you did raise some questions last week, this is reaction, not planning. And as a trustee for Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development, I want to advocate for not reactivity, but proper master planning, which is really what the outcome of this site plan is, to plan correctly. If you need a couple of weeks, please put it off, get your questions answered. You know, that said, I believe you do need answers to these questions, especially on traffic, especially on sewer, water as well. But I do think Ridgewood needs proper development and reasonable development. Representing the other trustees of RCRD and the thousands of supporters and donors to our cause over the last 5 or 6 years, this development, as it stands now, doesn't meet the term "reasonable." It's not as if this were planned properly from a proactive Master Plan, it's reactive. From my understanding, we met, a group of citizens was called to meet at Village Hall earlier in the year and there were some changes to these plans that were presented, and we were asked: How would you feel about that? I just want to go on record saying, with some reasonable changes I would support the development that you guys have. I don't think what we've been presented, what we saw in the storyboards, our last card, the architectural ‑‑

1. MR. CAFARELLI: One minute remaining.
2. MR. SLOMIN: Give the village, give the residents who have spoken in our votes at the last two council elections, where everybody elected to council was vehemently against the levels of development that are before us tonight. I think you guys have, between the Planning Board and the council, potentially ways to make this more reasonable, more right for Ridgewood. And I would say before you vote, put it out in the open, let's get it right, and please do everything you can for your residents, ask your questions, make your decisions, and please get it right, make it reasonable. Thank you very much. Thanks for your service.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks.

1. MS. TARZIAN: Linda Tarzian, 576 Highland Avenue, Ridgewood.

So we all, I think, can agree ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think your mic is off, if you want to hit the on button down at the bottom.
2. MS. TARZIAN: So I think we can all agree, development can be welcome. These places have become eyesores, so we're not against development, I'm not. Would welcome it. Especially if we can fill the retail spaces, the existing ones, which have been empty, but I think, to echo my former colleagues' comments, can we scale back the height to keep it in line with the historic nature for a beautiful village? We can consider or would the developer consider reducing the number of units to reduce the taxation on our village services and maybe consider selling the units, so the taxes would be collected from each unit to support the sewer, the schools, and our fire and police? So I'm hoping you will take that into serious consideration. All of these in concert are going to change the nature of the village that we love. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

1. MR. FELTSOTT: Ed Feltsott, 67 Heights Road, Ridgewood. I would just like to support my neighbors, Dave Slomin and others, who have stood up here and spoke. They've spoken about reasonable development. I think residents would agree with that, reasonable development, not what is being put forth today. One of the reasons that there was a change in the village council is because people were tired of the old village council and wanted a change and they did not want the overdevelopment of Ridgewood. It's great for the developers. Obviously they are spending a lot of money on legal fees. But, you know, you have to do what's best for us residents. I moved to Ridgewood. I have a business up in Mahwah, so this was a convenient town, but there are many convenient towns. I picked Ridgewood because it was a quaint town that reminded me of Scarsdale, where I grew up. It wasn't overdeveloped, there weren't these huge parking lots, and it was a really beautiful town. The other thing I want to point out is people speak about bringing shopping back to Ridgewood. Well, I think Macys and Nordstrom have tried to figure out how to bring shopping back to their stores. People are not shopping. They are not going to retail stores like they did 20 years ago; people are shopping online. If you look at Montclair, you know, the village, what you will see is a robust restaurant business. Restaurants work on a 70 percent profit margin. We just had the young women's clothing store go out of business on the main street, Gypsy Gordon. My niece worked for them. She was hired for the summer, and after two weeks she was told they couldn't pay their rent on their warehouse and they were forced to close. That's because you can't work on 35, 45 percent profit margin and have a business that's paying high taxes like businesses pay in Ridgewood. If you own a restaurant, and you're working on 70 percent margin or better and you skimp on your ingredients, you can make ends meet. So I do see there are going to be changes in Ridgewood. I think it will be much more of a restaurant‑type town.
2. MR. CAFARELLI: Five minutes.
3. MR. FELTSOTT: I think retail stores opening in Ridgewood is over.

So I would like to see changes here. I would like to see Ridgewood thrive and grow, but I would not like to see us turn into a Hackensack or Englewood or an overdeveloped town like White Plains, and you guys have done a wonderful job. You listened to a lot of feedback, and we do appreciate it. We just hope you'll not make a hasty decision, because this decision is going to affect the town for decades to come. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Feltsott.

1. MS. D'ANGELO: Ardis D'Angelo, 414 Red Birch Court.

I've lived in Ridgewood for 14 years. I have three children who are all born here and have grown up here. I am disturbed that, even though concerns about public safety have been raised, talk of this housing proposal is still being pushed through. Water restrictions for the past two years have been heightened much more than in years past. This is all without any additional homes. Now imagine adding a significant number of new apartments. How can we allow something as large as this to pass, when we don't know how it will impact our water shortage? It's our job to protect our residents. What if there's a fire, will there be enough water pressure in the hydrant to save the house? No one knows for sure, and the builders don't care. And then there's the issue of traffic. Several years ago, a friend of mine, a mom of three, was hit by a car in town. Through a miracle, she survived and she's okay, even though she had severe internal bleeding and it was touch and go for quite a while. I remember the pit in the stomach of every person that knew her, how we hung on day‑to‑day crying and praying for her to pull through. I remember this like it was yesterday. Imagine how many more accidents like this will happen with the additional traffic caused by this many new units in such a condensed space. These accidents are going to happen more and more often. And the next time we might not be so lucky. Think of the kids, of the mother who gets hit by that car, think of the husband who's now forced to continue raising them alone and live his life without his wife. And then there's the schools. I understand a study was done last year that found that all these new units would result in so few students that the impact to the town would be de minimis. Anyone in this town who has heard about that study has heard the so‑called results of the study and literally laughs when talking about it. Ask yourself, how could this many new units truly result in a non‑impactful number of new students? I came here for the Ridgewood schools. Almost everyone I know has come to Ridgewood for the well‑known schools. If apartments are built, people will come for the schools. So, of course, they'll have kids, that's why people come to Ridgewood. I think everyone knows the study resulted in false information in order to move forward an agenda that was being pushed by people who want these buildings to be approved. And then I learned at the last meeting that there will need to be upgrades to traffic lights both at the intersection of the site and surrounding intersections. So just to be clear, the Ridgewood taxpayers, who don't want these buildings in our town, will now have to pay extra to support these new intersection upgrades. That's a scam on the Ridgewood families. Everyone I've spoken to regarding the high density buildings don't want them. The families here don't want them. And now the town is going to have to pay to have something that none of us want. How can we, in good conscience, vote yes to this? I know there's a concern of a lawsuit if the Planning Board votes no. But consider this, I personally would rather Ridgewood pay more to defend a lawsuit than have Ridgewood pay to enable the implementation of something that the people of Ridgewood don't even want, and I know I'm not alone in this opinion. It's very easy to understand what's happening here. Builders have a lot of money at stake and want to push this through for their own financial gain. But what about the people of Ridgewood? Where does that leave us? Tonight I ask you to vote your conscience, what you know in your heart is right for the Ridgewood people both from a safety perspective and from the perspective of how this will impact our schools. I know several friends who really wanted to be here tonight, but it's summertime and people have plans. Please don't mistake the empty seats to mean that the Ridgewood public supports this in any way. There are reasons why people couldn't be here to show their opposition, some are on vacation, some are at their kids' baseball games, but please know that their absence doesn't mean that they actually want this building as it is proposed to go in. Everyone I've spoken to is against this.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Time is up.
2. MS. D'ANGELO: And don't simply cower to the threat of a lawsuit by political bullies who don't care about Ridgewood or its people. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Ms. D'Angelo.

1. MS. REMIS: Hi. Jane Remis, 118 Madison Place. What I have to say is similar to what the last speaker said, in that, you know, I am concerned about the traffic and I know we need to upgrade those traffic lights. I think what I've heard is Chris say that they're, like, already 25 years out of date, so one way or another they need to be replaced. I can put up with a little more traffic, but I'm much more concerned about what the developers will do to increase pedestrian safety? Because if they put in, like, a CVS‑type store, which I actually think might be a nice ‑‑ it might be nice to have a store that you could go to for different things and walk to, but I want to be able to safely walk there. And every day after school, I've actually gone and counted the GW students who walk toward town, and you can't really count them, it's got to be like 100; Friday is more. They go to West Side Bagels, they go to the village. If there's something like a CVS‑type store, they're all going to be going there. That's my concern, can we do something to get there more safely and is that in the plans? If it is, I'm sorry, I missed it, but, you know, also, like, I know we're trying to do a lot to make this a walkable town for seniors, and this is probably an undoable idea, but, like, is there any way to make some sort of pedestrian walkway from, like, Ridge Crest down to that, I don't know how that would work, but like down to that development, if they wanted to go to that store? Because, you know, rather than having them come down, you know, and not just the seniors, but, like, anyone who lives in the Heights area, you know, without coming down to Ridgewood Avenue, crossing the train station, crossing again, is there any possible way to make some sort of connection, in case there's a store or if you want to go to even East Coast Burger or something, you're just crossing one of the worst intersections in town. So that, you know, basically, that's all I have to say. I hope that there's going to be something done for pedestrian safety in the event that a store that has, like, maybe poster paper or they just want to go there after school and spend a few minutes before they go home. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank, Ms. Remis.

1. MS. ROMERO: Marisol Romero, 258 Steilen Avenue.

Good evening. Basically just two points. First is, when I think of everything that's been spoken about in regards to, like, the safety and the traffic, I keep thinking about the children, and a prime example was about two weeks ago. My son, my oldest, attends Ridge, and third graders did their annual trip, which was hosted in part by the village, which was very nice, thank you, MAYOR KNUDSEN, and they had to walk from Ridge all the way down underneath the train station down to Graydon, because they came to visit the village and get to know how the village works, and then they went to Graydon Pool. And I can tell you, there were at least 75 students, that's not including the teachers and the aides. And when I think about that, the swarm of this big group of children that do a yearly trip, it's part of their yearly trip, that they are so excited to come and visit the village and then go to Graydon Pool. They're going to have to take that long trip, and I just keep thinking about the traffic, the traffic, and the traffic, because the more traffic you have, and I should know this, I grew up in Queens, the higher risk in instances of accidents. I can't just imagine, someone pointed it out, if it's a one‑way this way, one‑way that way, if someone is struck, how do we get to that person to give them immediate care or take them to the hospital? 

Then my second point is, one thing I keep hearing, and appreciate that some of the members said this, was that we have all these trains that are nice and shiny and they're moving, but we really don't have a good sense or at least I don't get that feeling of how the whole picture is going to look. And to me, there's a saying, the truth is always shorter, but I don't feel like I'm getting that from the developers. I don't feel like we're getting answers, clearcut black‑and‑white answers, about things that are going to be happening or the way things are going to flow or this or that, and it makes me feel really uncomfortable. I think I agree with some of the people that spoke that regardless of how you feel, whether you're for the development or against the development, at a minimum this has to be thorough planning. And so I ask that when you think about pushing through on this, have you really done due diligence? I feel like we have not done due diligence, not because you guys haven't asked the right questions, but because we aren't getting answers that are clearcut. That's it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MS. ROMERO.

1. MS. TARZIAN: I figured my enormous tax rate allows me to speak one more time. I hope that ‑‑ and, again, I thank all of you, I didn't do that earlier, for the responsibility you've taken on.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just state your name again.

1. MS. TARZIAN: Linda Tarzian, 576 Highland Avenue. I know that you're not supposed to look at the whole, all the proposals, but I'm asking you as a resident that when you consider tonight's proposal, that you really look at the impact on the corridor, the L‑shaped corridor, Broad to Franklin, and what a nightmare it's going to be like, because Ken Smith, it's been shuttered for how many years, and when it was opened there would be maybe one car going in every half hour. With 66 units or 64 units, correct me if I'm wrong, two cars per unit, probably 2 to 4 kids per unit eventually, there is going to be a significant impact. We talked about it. I just want you to know again, even though the representation isn't here tonight, as taxpayers we do not want it as is.

We understand that there are ways to beautify the downtown district, somebody owns the property, what about a retirement center or adult housing? Scale it back. There might be less cars with seniors in there. Sell the units. There might be another way to get around some of the valid concerns. Right now I'm allowed to water my lawn twice. I'm very concerned the impact that has been raised on the water; 66 units on top of all the other ones that are being considered and are already approved. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MS. TARZIAN. 

Anyone else? (No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Seeing there's no one else from the public that would like to make a comment, I guess, MR. TUVEL, you can make a closing statement.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do I have a motion to close public comment?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So moved.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Call the roll, Michael.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a unanimous vote.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Public comments are closed. We are now going to move on to a closing statement from the applicant.

1. MR. TUVEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mayor, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, members of the board, for your time and attention during the course of these proceedings. I think we're on our sixth proceeding over a nine‑month period. The first thing that I wanted to talk about in connection with this application is the role of the board. I think that's an extremely important aspect of this application, and the board's deliberation. And forgive me if I come across a little professorial here what the law is, but I think it's very important to the board's decision‑making in connection with this application. This application and the Planning Board specifically, is governed by Section 25 of the Municipal Land Use Law, which are the duties and powers of the Planning Board. The duties and powers of the Planning Board ‑‑ well, there are different categories: Subdivision, capital improvements, variances, conditional uses, site plan; only one applies here, which is site plan. We have no variances. We have no conditional uses. We're not talking about a capital improvement project. So the scope of the board's review is extremely narrow. And what the case law has said about the scope of that review, and I'm going to quote, this isn't me, this is what the courts say, is that "the Planning Board's role in considering a site plan application is circumscribed. The object of site plan review is assure compliance with the standards under the municipality's site plan and land use ordinances." And that's a case from the Appellate Division from 1997, Shim v. Washington Township Planning Board.

So site plan review is never intended to include, and this again is another quote that was actually used in your counsel's memo that I agree with in terms of the direction the board has to go in in connection with this application is "Site plan review was never intended to include the legislative or quasi‑judicial power to prohibit a permitted use." So where does that leave us? What has the case law said what flows from there? And what flows from there is a Planning Board, this is again quotes from an Appellate Division decision, is that a "Planning Board has no authority to deny a site plan on its view that a use permitted under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the principles of sound zoning." So that's the premise, that is the scope of the board's review. I know many of you know this, but I think it's important for everyone to understand this during the course of their deliberation. And why is that important? Well, why is it important that we have these laws, rules, and regulations in connection with a board's review? Well, there's policy reasons, very important policy reasons about it.

No. 1, it would lead to arbitrary rulings. Boards could just simply make arbitrary rulings. There would be no guidelines, rules or regulations, and there would basically be anarchy with respect to zoning and planning throughout the state. It would violate due process. Applicants, developers, whether it's an individual, a developer, a corporation, a non‑profit, whatever, there's an expectation that an applicant has, when they come to a Planning Board, that when they comply with the rules and regulations, that the application will ultimately be approved. Now, what I said based on a lot of the comments that have been received this evening and that we've heard during the course of the proceeding is not a very popular statement. I don't consider myself a brain surgeon for figuring that out, that the zoning and the planning principles that guide this application are not very popular within this room, but that's the law that this board is guided by. As a board member, you're obligated to follow those laws, whether they're popular or not. This is a fully conforming site plan before this board. That's a very rare thing, actually. I doubt many attorneys, and I do this on a regular basis, have an application that is completely variance or waiver free. This application complies with all the zoning regulations within your ordinance and site plan regulations within your ordinance. What that means is that the applicant has designed a plan within the confines of the laws of the village which have already been set out and it's consistent with its Master Plan and zoning goals and objectives. So what does the law dictate there? And then again I'm going to quote from case law, this isn't me talking, is that "The denial of a site plan application would be a drastic action when the pertinent ordinance standards are met."

1. MR. MARTIN: I think it's drastic measure of the Shim case, is that what you're saying?
2. MR. TUVEL: Yes, I'm quoting actually directly from the case law itself. I didn't paraphrase or anything, I'm quoting directly.
3. MR. MARTIN: I have the quote. Go ahead.
4. MR. TUVEL: I think you have it as well in your memo. There's also the Dunkin Donuts case versus the Township of North Brunswick, which states that when an applicant meets zoning and site plan ordinance standards, off‑site traffic conditions cannot be a basis for denial. That's also important, because we've heard a lot about off‑site traffic and a lot about off‑site conditions, and I'll get to more about that in a minute. But, again, looking at the confines of the board's analysis and the board's purview, it's very important that you stick within those confines. Architecture: There's case law on this issue as well, where it says that a board does not sit as an architectural review board and that generally the style of architecture is the exclusive prerogative of the applicant, so long as all the other ordinance requirements are met. That's again not me, that's straight from the case law that govern Planning and Zoning Board proceedings. So this application conforms, and that's with all of your zoning requirements and site plan requirements, and that's been confirmed by both planners for the village that have reviewed this site plan. And, in fact, to be quite honest, it's actually less intense than some of the zoning ordinance requirements. For example, the zoning allows 35 units to the acre, this is 32.8 units to the acre. We're actually less than the impervious surface that's permitted, and we're reducing it from existing conditions, which you don't get a lot in urban areas, are actually preferred from a planning standpoint. We're more than double the size of the lot area that's required. And our FAR, floor area ratio, which really goes to the nonresidential component in the application, is actually 28 percent less than what is permitted. So we meet a lot of the requirements on point, but we're actually below a lot of the permitted standards in terms of intensity. We also meet the affordable housing obligation that we're required to have in connection with this application. Now, there were some comments made that there wasn't enough due diligence done. In fact, I've actually never worked on an application that had so much due diligence done. There is a complete document that governs the traffic impacts of all four of these developments. I mean, I know we're only talking about this one, but there was an analysis done that went site‑by‑site analyzed all these issues from a traffic standpoint, utilities standpoint, municipal services standpoint, schools standpoint. It's very rare, as an attorney, that I actually get to work on a project that actually analyzes all those things within the confines of a permitted use. So to say there hasn't been due diligence done, listen, I know when there is change, people are apprehensive, and that's only human nature, so I don't blame people for saying what they say or thinking what they think, but there has been an enormous amount of due diligence done in connection with this application. I wasn't a part of it, I know many of you were. There were hearings upon hearings where experts discussed many of these issues. So you ask, well, if we meet all these requirements and we're actually conforming and you must approve the application, that's what I'm saying, well, why are we even here in the first place? We're here in the first place, because a Planning Board still has the obligation and the duty to impose, if it feels necessary, reasonable conditions on a site plan; even if it's fully complying, it can impose reasonable conditions. It must approve, but there can be reasonable conditions that are implemented. So, let's talk about some of the reasonable conditions that have been implemented during the course of the dialogue between the board, the applicant, and the public, and all the professionals that have been associated with the project. So, No. 1, we agreed to meet all the requirements of the village engineer. His report had site plan requirements, stormwater management requirements, soil movement requirements and sanitary sewer service requirements, and we've agreed to comply with all aspects of his report in all of those categories. Your traffic engineer, as I mentioned earlier, Shropshire Associates, they issued their initial letter on January 17th, I think probably our second or third meeting. So we got an initial report, we thought that was going to be the only report, but we got another one. But in connection with that first report, which mainly dealt with on‑site issues but also delved into off‑site to some degree, we agreed, and I'm just going to hit some of the highlights, I'm not going to verbatim go through the report, but some of the items that we agreed to, we agreed to everything in the report, but just some of the highlights for the board's recollection.

We agreed to increase the visibility of the signal heads. We agreed to ensure that the stop bars are properly located within the development. We already had stop bars placed, there was some additional recommendations by your traffic professional that we agreed to. We're improving the sidewalk across the driveways by way of color and texture to delineate vehicular crossings for pedestrian access. In terms of on‑site circulation, we agreed to modify the signage on‑site to delineate to your traffic engineer's satisfaction fire lanes that are associated with the project. We comply with all regulations and fire codes, but there were some additional items that were requested for on‑site circulation. From a parking standpoint, not only your planner but your board engineer confirmed that we not only comply with the Residential Site Improvement Standards, also known as RSIS, in connection with the residential development of this application, but as part of all the parking as it relates to nonresidential as well. So we comply with the ordinance, we comply with the RSIS, we also comply with the ADA requirements as to parking. There were some comments that we agreed to as well, designating certain parking spaces as employee parking; providing protection for the building columns on the site; modifying the location of handicapped signs; and we're agreeing to prohibit parking along the site's frontages. In terms of trip generation, something that was discussed this evening, the report indicated that they agreed with the trip generation analysis utilized in the report. When I say "report," I mean proposed by the applicant or testified to by the applicant. There was some technical design requests for the signals that we agreed to comply with. So that was the first traffic engineer letter. So I guess in terms of due diligence, not only do we have the history of all the traffic analysis done in connection with these projects, we also had two traffic reports done for this project, as well as your village engineer's civil review letter as well. So, in terms of the second letter that was issued on April 13, 2017, there were six comments that were made, and based on those six comments, there were six recommendations that were suggested by your traffic expert. So, No. 1 ‑‑ and we agreed to comply with all of them, but just to sort of summarize what they are. We agreed to repair all of the sidewalk on the south side of Franklin and east side of Chestnut pursuant to the report. We agreed to re‑stripe all crosswalks proposed between Chestnut and Franklin, as indicated in the report, and ensure that all the handicapped ramping was ADA compliant. The N. Broad and Franklin signal was discussed a lot by the board as well as the traffic expert. The traffic expert had some recommendations for that signal. We agreed to the activation on each approach. We agreed to video detection. We agreed to improve the visibility of the signal heads. The handicapped ramps are to be updated per the board engineer's letter, and we're installing a Franklin Avenue crosswalk, pursuant to the letter as well. The fourth recommendation was that we provide traffic striping and pavement markings and that they be replaced along Franklin between Chestnut and N. Broad. We agreed to do that. The fifth recommendation, we agreed to reinstall the Chestnut Street centerline. And, finally, we agreed to the proposed improvements indicated in the report for the signal at the intersection of Franklin and Oak Street. So, in terms of due diligence and traffic analysis, we agreed to comply with both of your traffic expert's recommendations for both on‑site and off‑site improvements that we can make.

Lastly, your planner's letter, your planner again confirmed that we are fully compliant with the applicable ordinance requirements that govern this application. We agreed with the landscaping comments provided in her report, as well as the crosswalk comments to the amenity area. And when I say "her report," I mean Ms. Manus' report dated May 12th or updated as of May 12, 2017. Despite the case law that I read on architecture, we also agreed, since architecture can be somewhat subjective, to meet with Ms. Manus, the planner, as well as a subcommittee of the board to work out any architectural comments that the board may have that could potentially lead to an aesthetic change to the building. So those were the changes that we agreed to as part of "reasonable conditions" that I like to call them that the board implemented on a fully conforming site plan based on the recommendations of the board's experts. Now, there are other changes that we made to the plan based on back and forth between the board and some additional dialogue that we had with the board and its experts. For example ‑‑ I won't name them all and just bear with me, I promise I'm going to finish soon ‑‑ we agreed to place an 8‑inch‑diameter main within Franklin Avenue. It is to be lined to reduce inflow and infiltration. The developer agreed to monitor the sanitary flow through a meter. The parking area, as viewed from Chestnut Street, is now completely screened. We reduced, and I don't know if everyone here remembers, we reduced the retail space in connection with this project from 8,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet. I know that was done probably in the first several months of our hearings. I don't know if a lot of members of the public were at those meetings, but we did reduce significantly the portion of the development that's related to the retail space. We made sure that all proper sight triangles were established. There were 22 spaces adjacent to the building that have been changed for retail use only. That was at the request of several of the board members at one of our first meetings. The parking space sizes were modified to comply with all RSIS requirements. By doing that, our application fully conforms with all Residential Site Improvement Standards as it relates to parking and drive aisles and all other applicable state requirements. So, my point to the board in raising all that is that the process basically played out exactly as it should in that you have a permitted use that's fully compliant; however, the board has a chance to review it and say, hey, what can we do to make this project a little bit better, even though it fully conforms? And from that, we have that entire list of items that I just mentioned that have been implemented based on dialogue between the applicant and the board, its professionals, and questions and comments that we've received from the public. And that wasn't rushed, that was over the course of six hearings over nine months. It's not as if we had one or two meetings on this project and just were done. There was a long dialogue between the board and the applicant in connection with this project. Another thing that I'd like to mention is, unlike some of the other multifamily housing projects that were mentioned, and I know they kind of get grouped together even though they should all be viewed individually and on their own merits, but since they were mentioned, this is the only one that is seeking absolutely no relief whatsoever from the ordinance. I believe some of the others had some maybe minor variances or deviations, but this application does not deviate at all. I just wanted that to be noted. So, in sum, the board has an obligation here to approve this application under the law with reasonable conditions, I believe I've read, and maybe the board will have some additional ones based on what their counsel has written during the course of the meetings or during deliberations, but we've gone through the process, as it should, and I think we've come up with a better plan, based on back and forth between the applicant and the board. And I know that's not a popular statement to be made, and I know that there's, you know, some public opposition that's come here, but that's also ‑‑ and I don't even quote case law on that either, the public opposition is not a basis for denial either. How many people in the room put up their hands and said they don't want it versus they do want it is not a consideration for the board to make. The board has to look at the application within the confines of the ordinance. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, unless there's any procedural questions for me, I appreciate your time in letting me speak and sum up. I know there's been a lot of back and forth and it's gone over a long period of time, but I do appreciate the board's time and dedication to the process, I know the board wants to come out with the best project possible and I think we've done that. So I would respectfully request that the board make a motion to approve the application based on reasonable conditions, the ones that I read, and in the event that there are any others, and we're here to, of course, answer any other questions that you may have. And I thank the public as well for their participation in the process.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, just a couple of points I want to see if we can agree on. And I apologize, I didn't answer your calls earlier today, I was at the hospital.
2. MR. TUVEL: No, Chairman mentioned when you weren't here at 7:00, because you're usually on time. I hope everything is okay.
3. MR. MARTIN: I believe it will be.

You're not seeking any variances, correct?

1. MR. TUVEL: No.
2. MR. MARTIN: No waivers?
3. MR. TUVEL: No.
4. MR. MARTIN: No site plan exceptions?
5. MR. TUVEL: Correct.
6. MR. MARTIN: With that, you know, I appreciate what the board does, the developer does, the town does, but the public coming out for this I think is very important as well. What I'd like to just say for the record, because I think the public deserves it, the Dunkin Donuts case that was thrown about a few minutes ago, Dunkin Donuts v. Township of North Brunswick, the Appellate Division held that the Planning Board did not have authority to deny a site plan approval because of off‑site traffic conditions, stating "The authority to prohibit or limit use as generating traffic into already congested streets with a high rate of accidents is an exercise of the zoning power vested in the municipal governing body." And there's another case Stochel v. Planning Board of Edison Township. The bottom line is, the "governing body" means the village council. So whether you like it or not, the zoning power as to, you know, whether it's allowed was vested with the governing body, the Planning Board has different duties. In terms of the Planning Board, the board must decide on the facts produced at the hearing. All testimony and all evidence on which the board makes its decision must be part of the record and the board's decision must include the findings on the record, the facts, and make its decision inclusions on points of law. So, you take what the applicant presented, you decide whether that's sufficient or not in the burden of proof. You take what the board's professionals independently presented objectively and decide how that fits into the application and see what facts and expert evidence that is required is sufficient for the board to make a determination. In terms of what the Planning Board can do with the zoning use that the governing body requires of it, a municipality's authority to plan and zone allows it to impose conditions on a developer as part of the police power of the ordinances, so the Planning Board can put on conditions. There's a case called ERG Container, et al. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Morris County.
7. MR. TUVEL: Everybody is writing down these citations, Chris, so you better get them right.
8. MR. MARTIN: You already have them. The court noted the Planning Board could address the noise and traffic which would be generated by the intensification of a permitted use. What does that mean? That means the governing body, the village council, allowed the use. There's arguments here and concerns of the citizens, "I believe that it's going to be intensified. There's going to be more traffic." So, the Planning Board can address that by imposing appropriate restrictions and conditions in connection with site plan approval, rather than barring the proposed use, because the use is something that's not vested with this Planning Board. I believe our very own planner, Ms. McManus, addressed that in her testimony. So, with the standards that MR. TUVEL presented and hope some clarification by me, you need to take the facts as a board and move forward.
9. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, very, very briefly could my client, the principal of the developer, say a few words just very briefly?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I don't see a problem with that. Sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So I'd like to call on Mr. John Saraceno.

John, we got to just swear you in.

1. MR. MARTIN: Raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

1. MR. SARACENO: I do.

J O H N S A R A C E N O, 17 Coventry Court, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 

1. MR. MARTIN: Just state your business and address.
2. MR. SARACENO: My address is 17 Coventry Court, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
3. MR. TUVEL: John, before you get into the substance of what you want to say, can you just for the record state your role in connection with the project and the applicant?
4. MR. SARACENO: I am a member of the partnership that owns the property. What I'd like to say is, I've heard the comments. There's a lot that goes into these processes. This room is a bad room, it doesn't allow for the dialogue that people want, but I would like to express to the people that showed up tonight and the people that showed up for 10 years, because this is how long this has been going on, there has been constant dialogue. Your representatives have represented you well, and there will be ongoing dialogue. Tonight is not the end of the process, it's actually a very long one between an approval and the development of this site. I'm not going to apologize for it, because I still think it's the right thing to do for this site. I still think it's the right thing to do for Ridgewood, and I'd advocate for it as vehemently as I have for the last 10 years for the next 10 years, but I'm not insensitive to it, none of the partners are. There's a lot of Ridgewood residents that are in support of this. There's a lot of Ridgewood residents who are actually involved in this project. I think that's a good thing, because we do care, and I think it's evidenced by the things we do quietly in the community for many, many years and will continue do so. As relates to this, I'd ask people to trust the process, trust your mayor, trust your council people, trust the Planning Board.

The room doesn't allow for dialogue, and it doesn't allow for a give and take, it's just the essence of the Planning Board process, but the diligence is ongoing. We will look at all those things from the standpoint of in the future and look backs and things relative to lights and other culvert issues, and try to create a project that does not change the character of Ridgewood. I have no interest in changing the character of Ridgewood; I want to enhance the character of Ridgewood. I live here. I've lived here for more than 20 years, and I want to live here for another 20 years. I hope that people appreciate the process and appreciate that "developer" doesn't equal "bad guy," and developer doesn't equal someone who's sort of out for their own personal well‑being in every sort of turning corner.

The reality is, as I said in the beginning, I'd advocate for it today as hard as I have to this point and I would do the same thing as I did to this point. And I hope that the people who are opposed appreciate the people in the seats that are necessary to control and influence this process that does so in a way that will create a great project in Ridgewood, it's just that this room doesn't give you the feeling that it's going to get there, but it will. I hope that you can just trust that myself and our partners are going to do something that the village will be proud of, once it's over. Thank you.

1. MR. TUVEL: So, Mr. Chairman, I think that concludes our presentation. We're happy to answer any questions or if issues come up during the course of deliberations that you need us to waive, where appropriate, we're happy to do so.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do I have a motion to formally close the hearing?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So moved.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Jeff. Second?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And Joel is the second. Okay. It's a motion to close the hearing. 

Call the roll, Michael. (At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a unanimous vote.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Now we're on to the deliberation part. Does anyone need a five‑minute break or anything?

COURT REPORTER: I do.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I was picking up the vibe. All right. So we'll take a five‑minute break, and then we'll start deliberation.

(A short recess is held.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're going to come back to order now. 

Okay. Michael, call the roll.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken with MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI, MS. McWILLIAMS, MR. SCHEIBNER, Ms. Barto, and CHAIRMAN JOEL present.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're back on. It's deliberation time, and I guess we'll start with Dave, unless anyone has any comments they want to add quickly before we go down the line. Dave.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: First of all, I would like to thank the members of the public who came tonight and made their voices heard. This is an important part of the process. Some of the sentiments that were voiced, while they don't directly impact what we need to do as a board, it's important to hear them. I did want to say that change is hard, and change that this particular development presents is probably a bigger change than most of us have seen in the village, but when I moved to the village, there were three hardware stores, most of the businesses in the business district were locally owned, there was much less traffic. So what each individual feels like needs to be preserved is not necessarily the same thing. We've actually lived through a lot of progress in the 33 years that I've lived here, and change isn't so bad after all, in my experience. So, getting back to the application that we have before us here, it's big, but it's smaller than it could be. It presents more activity in an area that is already busy, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Ridgewood is a busy place; it's not a sleepy town. It's a vital place. It's an active place. And bringing families into the center of Ridgewood could actually be a positive thing. So, seeing that there are no variances, there are no exceptions, I don't see how we can turn this application down.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Dave.

Jeff.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, I'd also like to thank the public for coming out. Their concerns are well noted, and hopefully they will be addressed as we move forward with this, you know, and they relate to safety of our downtown, our children. They relate to our taxes, ensuring that our taxes are not going to go up. They relate to making our town a very manageable place, I think, for everybody. So, you know, I'm going to throw out some other reasonable conditions for this development, and hopefully we can discuss these as part of our deliberations. So, what I think we talked about last week with The Dayton, and this relates to the infrastructure and relates to the infrastructure needs based on what this development is going to probably impart, that relates to sewer and water, and the concern we had with The Dayton was that if there is a significant amount or a cost of infrastructure that needs to be improved dramatically, that is something we can revisit, if it gets to that point. And my concern is that us spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on the infrastructure for this thing to function adequately, that's one thing that I'm concerned about. The other thing I'm concerned about relates to the Franklin Avenue corridor. I think we need and the developer needs to work very actively with Bergen County in ensuring that we can procure some additional traffic lights here that will not put an undue burden on our village and increase our taxes for doing so. I just want to make sure that that's something that we think about, we talk about. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the look back. This is something that concerns me a bit and it relates to, Joel, your comment that in its totality, these developments, plus we're going to have the Starbucks, which is a drive‑through, and that particular corridor is going to be very active over time, so that the concern that I would have is if we do anything as it relates to the upgrades of the intersections in the look back, whatever timeframe that is, that if additional improvements need to be made, again that is something that ends up being negotiated between the village and the developer and maybe even multiple developers such that, you know, again, we do not have to bear the brunt of any additional costs that are incurred in any upgrades to any of the intersections. So those are the three things I'd like to put on the table. I don't know if that's stuff you want, like, to talk about a little bit further. So that's it. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Jeff.

MAYOR KNUDSEN.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Sure. So, first, thank you to the applicant, to your professionals, to the folks that came out on your behalf, and to Jason Tuvel, who has absolutely been very polite and very professional through this process. I really actually have to compliment you, you've been outstanding. I just want to thank the residents for coming out this evening. I think it's all good. Before I get started, I just want to share this little story that happened years ago in my house, you'll appreciate it, Ardis, and I know Jane Remis left. Years ago in my house, when my kids were maybe 4, 8 and 9, I did what I called "amnesty night." Whenever they did, the worst thing ever they did in their life, they could tell us and they wouldn't get in trouble for it. So my kids started to ‑‑ each one told a little story, but my third son, there was a lot of whispering going on and I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was. I thought: Did you steal something? Did you kick someone? Did you do something so awful? And finally he said, "No. But you promise I can't get in trouble and I'll never be punished?" I said, "Promise." "I was riding my bicycle on Franklin and I was hit by a car." And he never told us for over a year, because he feared we would never permit him to ride his bicycle again. The woman who hit him helped him pick up his bicycle, made sure he was okay, he straightened out his bicycle, had a little scratch, and rode away. So I share your concerns about our children on Franklin, pedestrians, and I share your concerns. I have heard the applicant, and they've addressed these concerns and have made some accommodations with the improvements to clean up sidewalks, the handicapped‑accessible ramps and other such things, and we'll be looking at those. But in this instance, we don't get to vote with our heart, it's not a luxury here, we have to apply the law. On June 2, 2015, right here in this room, I guess it was, maybe it was at BF, now I don't recall, there was a vote on a Master Plan Amendment. And that Master Plan Amendment opened the door for ordinances to be adopted at the Village Council level. At the time of the Master Plan Amendment, I said I don't think this is good, I think the density is too high, the building is too big. What happened? I voted no. When it came to the ordinances at Village Council, March 22nd, 2016 ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: March 23rd.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you, 23rd. Again I voted no, knowing full well that there would be an inconsistency with the Master Plan and the ordinance, and that would have to be defined and addressed, but, nonetheless, a 3/2 vote, the council majority supported the ordinances. The clock ticked, and these ordinances became law, and that is the law that we need to apply today. That means there's this box, and the applicant can put their box inside of this box, and as long as they don't need any variances or any special accommodations, they are compliant. And that's the bar, that's the measure that we have to apply to this application and others. Last week was The Dayton application. So inasmuch as necessarily I always felt that the density was too high, this is the law, this is what we have to deal with today, and, you know, just in terms of the cost to infrastructure improvements, all of that I unequivocally agree with as stipulated and all these things will be outlined. I was hoping this was the Dunkin Donuts case, because that would be very easy, but we're not talking about a Dunkin Donuts here today, we're talking about a multifamily housing development. So, based on just applying the law fairly, I will support the application as it is presently in its state to be fully conforming with zoning. I do believe that we will have reasonable conditions applied to that as we go down through this process, but we will support this.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Frances.

1. MS. BARTO: Sure. I want to thank everybody as well for participating in this very long process. You know, I'm just going to echo concerns that have been raised throughout: You know, the concerns about traffic in the immediate vicinity. There are safety concerns, so far as emergency services being able to reach these residents in light of the traffic issues. There are unknown costs to the village that we're all concerned about, I think. You know, as is noted by the public, this was an automobile dealership. It certainly is going to have an increase in volume of traffic in and out. That intersection is going to be problematic. So, you know, I agree with COUNCILMAN VOIGT that we need to seriously make sure that we have all the correct conditions in place. And in light of the fact that it's otherwise conforming, I will vote in favor of the application.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: First, I thank Jason for allowing me, to be newer at this end of the process up here, and being so courteous and polite in all of your responses and answers. You were nothing but helpful all the way around. The public for showing up, when you did and when you could. I know how hard it is to come to these things. John, I appreciate your comments and your partners'. I try to see things from every angle as possible. Jason, you brought up the role of the board and what it is that we're required to do, and, you know, I sometimes feel like the law tries to fit everything into the box that applies to it specifically at that moment; it can be the exact opposite at another, should the case that you're working on at that moment require. You say we're not here to address whether or not this is sound zoning, but is it sound planning? Is it sound zoning? Is it sound living? Is it any of those things? And it can't be denied, but that has to be a conversation.

It is a fully conforming application, and I feel as a fully conforming application, because sound zoning was overlooked in the original process, and I wasn't here for that process and that's just my comment here in the moment, that there is an expectation of approval by the developer, and, you know, where that pertains of the role of the board, I'm trying to find a way for those two to jive here in this application. And, you know, like I said, applying terms like "reasonable" where it suits the developer and not apply the same "reasonable" behavior to the intent of the board, that bothers me. I can't sit with that well. Units per acre, you know, you bring up the fact that you're 32.8 and you just don't find that in "urban areas." I think that was your exact sentence. This isn't an urban area, this is a suburban area.

1. MR. TUVEL: Sorry, if I said that.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: I understand, I'm not trying to ‑‑ and maybe I misheard part of what you said. You know, my list of concerns are: The safety, the traffic, the lights, the cost to the village. What happens when, down the line, down that corridor, things that everybody here has addressed, the pieces of the puzzle don't work and the cost to the village is too exorbitant for us to bear and it isn't necessarily in your or the developer's pocket? Then we all lose, because we can't upgrade the way we need to and the development is ultimately going to suffer, in my opinion, because it can't withstand what it would be, filled to capacity, and would it be thriving? And I have real concerns about that. You know, this particular development, like Dave said, I think in particular where it sits and the mass of it, all of the safety and traffic concerns, the amenity area, I've been very clear, I cannot get past that, that's a basis of a big part of the ordinance. And I think the "amenity area" is kind of pushing the definition of that. There isn't a single arbitrary or capricious thing in my not supporting the application, arbitrary with the goal or random or by chance, unpredictable is what that means, and capricious meaning, you know, autocratic and domineering and taking no consideration to anybody else in the role you play. And I take everybody's. Either nothing of my not supporting it does any of those things, but I don't support this application.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel. (Applause.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please don't applause.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'll keep my comments fairly brief, because I have notes for the past how many months, nine months, whatever. I think Jason did a good job of summarizing the application. There are many times during the hearings where I think we were just trying to allow the diligence, and we kind of deviated and got into some kind of safety issues and things that really aren't our purview. A lot of what the applicant proposes is as of right. We have ordinances in our town, and I think MAYOR KNUDSEN summed them up well; we have a box, and they can build this in the box, and they've done it. And I don't think anybody would disagree that the Ken Smith property is certainly in need of redevelopment. I mean, it's an eyesore. It's ridiculous. And it's a prominent spot in our community. I agree with Melanie that the outdoor amenity area is a joke. It won't be used. You know, I can picture that just being a useless spot, and that's really unfortunate, because I don't think that's the intent of the ordinance. The intent is to have an outdoor area the residents can enjoy, not whatever, a place where maybe someone can sit and watch a train go by. That's kind of missed. I agree with a lot of what Jeff said with being concerned about the downstream effects of this development, literally and figuratively, literally the downstream effects, the waste flowing, it's a narrow pipe and you're going to burden the whole system, and you're going to burden the traffic system, the infrastructure of the town. I have concerns about that. I think there were finite questions that remained unanswered throughout the hearing as far as the exact impact, the exact number of children or cars or pedestrians. And I think that's okay, because I think as a board when we do this, we have qualified professionals come in and they give their opinion and other professionals come in and they give their opinion. We question them as a board, we challenge them, and that's a good, healthy process, and I think we've done that. I think everybody on the board's paid attention. We've asked a lot of questions, we've not just accepted reports for what they are. And we've had professionals on both sides, the village and the applicant, come together, and I think they've done a good job. So, generally, I would favor the application. I'd just close by saying I'm really looking forward to re‑examining the Master Plan in its totality in the future with this board, because that's really what we need to be doing when we move past these multifamily applications.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thanks, Joel.

All right. I would like to thank the applicant, Jason, you did a very competent and good job presenting. I would like to thank our experts for assisting us in this difficult and long process. It's very helpful. I'd like to thank the public for the input. We are kind of just like an antenna, receiving information coming in, we ask questions and we try to do what's best for the village under the circumstances. We are confronted with having certain ordinances that we have to comply with, and this is a conforming plan, so, you know, based upon that, you have to work within that framework, but, again, it's a balancing act, you know, it's conforming on the one hand, yet we want to get the best thing for the town. And, you know, I believe the applicant wants to have a win situation for the town too. They're going to be residents, so they have a vested interest.

I did like hearing that it's going to be a process and it's not over, and there is room for even further improvement. I mean, you did indicate certain pluses, but, with certain developments, you know, there's also downsides with respect to certain things, so, you know, we're aware of that and we take that into consideration. So we've heard the evidence over nine months, a lot of witnesses, expert witnesses, a lot of questions, and the Ken Smith area is just a dead area, it does need redevelopment, it hasn't really done anything. I think it's kind of a key piece of property within the town, and something nice should be there. And I think this can be a win/win for the village, but, you know, we also would like to have certain conditions that take care of any negatives that might be coming from the development. I'd like the one condition with respect to the tower element, having a committee and the planner review that so that we can make sure that we get it just right, because it can be a really showcase element for the town. Also, as MAYOR KNUDSEN mentioned, with moving that light box, I mean, if it's moved, you know, the person should pay for it, you know, that might be a condition. Affordable housing mixed throughout the project would be another condition. Upgrades to the sewer was the other thing that we have. And, again, with the off‑tract improvements, you know, there should be a look back on it just make sure we confirm it out and make sure we're not being short‑changed as a village on it, so I think that's very important. So, I mean, it's a difficult situation. I mean, again, you can't just vote with your heart, you have to vote with what the law is and what our charge is. We have to determine whether the development plan conforms with the zoning ordinance and the applicable provisions to the site plan ordinance. I would say that the applicant has met the burden under the circumstances for it, and, you know, I would be voting in favor of it with the many conditions that we have to make sure that it's done right and protects the village.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I wanted to ask one more question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, two things that were said this evening and I just wanted to address them both. My board colleague, Melanie, suggested this wasn't sound zoning. That's not what our task is here tonight. Our task is not to determine whether or not this is sound zoning, our task is to apply the existing zoning laws to this particular application. As much as some of us would likely be happy to have that conversation, that's not what we are tasked here to do this evening. The one thing she said that I definitely wanted to address was the exterior amenity space, and I think the vice chairman also pointed that out, and I appreciate that both raised it. And my question would be: Is the applicant willing to work with us at a later time on that exterior amenity area? Because I do think that it's really nonsensical. It doesn't really work, and it appeared to be just an aside to build that, an obligatory, you know, an obligation.

1. MR. TUVEL: Can I answer that?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: I don't want to speak out of turn. I think that was in Ms. McManus' letter. So I would say as part of the architectural, same type of subcommittee. Since it was part of her purview in her review, we can include that analysis in those meetings.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Great.

1. MR. MARTIN: Similar to the tower committee?
2. MR. TUVEL: Yes. Exactly.
3. MR. MARTIN: I'm a little more comfortable with the board. Other applicant attorneys may not be happy with that, but go ahead.
4. MS. McWILLIAMS: As a quick comment, my comment wasn't that this isn't sound zoning, I said I was quoting Jason when he said that's not our role to determine if it's sound zoning, and, then, you know, I was trying to look at the bigger picture of sound planning, sound living, how it affects things in our community, and hearing other pieces of commentary and thought process. I wasn't quoting it specific, I was trying not to say those words. If I did, then I didn't mean to.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Just as a point to ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, I'm aware that's not our role here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: One other comment. I guess there's going to be a subcommittee. I would say that I would like Joel Torielli, MAYOR KNUDSEN, and Isabella to be on that committee, because two architects and the mayor I think would be a good fit to look at it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It's a great idea, and I thank you for that. The only one thing that we will have to do, once again, we all know our board colleague has been quite ill, so we'll just have to ensure that she's physically able to participate.

1. MR. MARTIN: Or one of the alternates.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Any other comments?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Oh, just the look back in the one year, that would be a stipulation.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Whoever makes the motion.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I would like to hear you guys are okay. We made several stipulations here, I want to make sure that you're agreeable or not to them going into the resolution as stipulations; yes or no?

1. MR. TUVEL: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You'll agree to the stipulations that I made?

1. MR. TUVEL: I'll work on the resolution with Chris.
2. MR. MARTIN: We'll get the transcript.
3. MR. TUVEL: Sure.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It makes it easier.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: I think Jason has all the transcripts.
2. MR. TUVEL: Yes, I do. I have them.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Do I hear a motion from anyone?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Motion to approve with the stipulations that we made during our deliberations, which I think are in the transcript.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And the ones during the hearing process too, right?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm sorry, say that again.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And the ones during the hearing process?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And the ones during the hearing process. As long as those are stipulated to, I'll make a motion to approve the application.

1. MR. MARTIN: The board stipulations and conditions?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Stipulations and conditions, yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do I hear a second?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We have a motion made by Jeff to approve the application with conditions and stipulations that were set forth in deliberations and during the hearing process, and we had a second from David. So we're going to call for the roll vote. If you say yes, you're agreeing for the motion to approve.

Okay. Call the roll, Michael.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
2. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: No.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: Ms. Barto?
4. MS. BARTO: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. The motion is carried, it's approved with all the stipulations and conditions.

1. MR. TUVEL: Great. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you for your time.

1. MR. TUVEL: I'll be in touch with you, Chris. Thanks a lot.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Hang on one second.

1. MR. SARACENO: John Saraceno, 17 Coventry Court, Ridgewood, New Jersey. First of all, thank you. I take everything, to a certain degree, personally, so I appreciate the vote of confidence in us and our team. I know that the scale of these things in the multiple numbers can give everybody pause and I get it, I'm a resident. I'm not insensitive to it. One of the things that I think I wanted to and outside of approval we could speak, there has been ongoing continuous negotiation to try to amend this plan, both from an architecture perspective, from a density perspective, and for other things that I think make the project a better project, one that we like better as well. But obviously in the context of this room and this process, it's always difficult to actually get to the sort of point where we can speak frankly and openly about some of the stuff. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. So, even though we had a compliant application, in that it didn't require variances, and obviously from a technical perspective, I know that makes it difficult on Planning Boards, since I know I could have gone down a different path and I think our partners could have, but as a resident and someone who cares about the process, and I know the council and the people that have been involved, and Susan and Jeff and Matt, and inside the declaratory judgment action and other stuff that we've had, conversations, is a project that I think when it's all said and done, everyone here, including Melanie, will actually like it. I just thank you again and hope that when it's all said and done, we have a project that we're all proud of. So thank you. I appreciate it.
2. MR. MARTIN: We'll continue to work together.
3. MR. SARACENO: Yes.
4. MR. MARTIN: For the record, I saw Mr. Mandlebaum (phonetic) in the audience and he has been nodding his head in support of your comments, both the first time you spoke and the second time. And I know he's been here at every hearing, and I for one appreciate his commentary. We didn't necessarily grant all the issues, but we're willing to work through it.
5. MR. SARACENO: Looking forward to it.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, this matter is concluded. Time noted: 9:43 p.m.)

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from July 18, 2017 were adopted as written.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

                                                                       

Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary
Date approved: September 18, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of August 1, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

 

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, MS. ALTANO, Melanie McWilliams, and David Scheibner. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Brigette Bogart; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto, Ms. Patire, and Mr. Van Goor were not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – None were reported

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli reported the Village Engineer and Village Planner submitted a report on the Jennee application, a letter from Conklin Associates to the Village Fire Department on emergency access, an email from Gillian Foley regarding the Calbi Application, and an email from Rurik Halaby concerning the Master Plan Sub-Committee.

Calbi, Minor Subdivision, and Permit for not Abutting Street, 315 East Glen Avenue, Block 2106, Lot 20 – The application was carried to October 3, 2017.

Robert Jennee, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 246 Mountain Road, Block 209, Lot 13.01 – The application was carried to August 1, 2017 without prejudice to the Board and without notice – Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The next item will be the Robert Jenee, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 246 Mountain Road, Block 209, Lot 13.1. Public hearing continued from June 6, 2017 and carried to August 1, 2017 without further notice and without prejudice to the board.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Mr. Chair, I'm going to be recusing myself from this application.

(Whereupon, MR. SCHEIBNER recuses himself.  And other matters are discussed.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  Thank you. 

Hi there, MR. RUTHERFORD.

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Give your intro and (Inaudible). 

13. MR. RUTHERFORD: I will, thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is David L. Rutherford, and I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, RC Jennee Construction, Inc. And I'm accompanied to my left by Thomas Skrable, who is our professional engineer. And over on my (inaudible) ‑‑ in fact in the rear is Mr. Jennee. And I'm also accompanied by Richard Preiss who is our professional planner, so we're prepared for testimony from MR. SKRABLE and MR. PREISS this evening.  Just by way of a very brief opening statement, we come before the board seeking a minor subdivision of Lot 13.01 in Block 2509.  You'll see that this is an extraordinarily large lot.  We are in a 125 zone.  We're looking to create a total of two lots.  So it will look like the construction of single‑family homes.  The testimony will show that the area of Lot 13.01 is over three times the minimum lot are in the zone, 25,000 square feet is required and we have approximately 80,000 square feet.  And has the frontage along Mountain Avenue is only 200 feet where 125 feet is required.  You'll see that the property runs between Mountain Avenue and Marlborough Road, which we understand to be a dedicated and accepted, but unimproved public street.  The property is presently improved with a single‑family home and a detached garage and accessory building, both of which would be demolished if the application is approved.  There's also a swimming pool and a tennis court, again, both of which we'll be demolishing if the application is approved. 

The subdivision plan before you requires variances, all of which are related to the fact that the proposed two lots can only be 100‑feet wide. So the variances are for lot width, the average lot width, area of the properties within 200 feet of the front lot line and for those provisions of the ordinance that relate to the required minimum buildable and usable area.  You will see that even after a subdivision, the area of the lots still greatly exceed what is required in an R‑125 zone.  And with respect to the buildable and usable areas, you'll see that these lots are irregular size.  This is not a torted subdivision with awkwardly shaped lots, you know, that are designed and purported to be lot bulk requirements in terms of width or shape, so I think we're ‑‑ we are certainly compatible with the spirit of those provisions that the ordinance that talk about buildable, usable area.  Again, we don't have the width.  They're slightly deficient on width.  They do meet the depth. We're going to be basing our application upon hardship.  In that strict application of the ordinance, as it relates to lot width to this extraordinarily‑sized lot, will unreasonably limit the use and enjoyment of the property to a fuller extent and will constitute a substantial underutilization of the property.  And we will also base our presentation upon the fact that the subdivision represents a better zoning alternative for the property as the newly created lots will be very similar in width and area of most of the other lots in the area.  We consider to represent a logical and reasonable way of using the property consistent with the established neighborhood pattern. 

1. MR. PREISS is going to address those issues in some detail, but you'll see that the prevailing lot width along this portion of Mountain Avenue, although there are some that do exceed 100 feet, it's essentially 100 foot, so we're very consistent with what's already there. So with that having been said, I'd like to have ‑‑ if you wish ‑‑ actually have MR. SKRABLE sworn, and proceed with his testimony.
2. MR. MARTIN: Sure. Thomas Skrable, raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

1. MR. SKRABLE: Yes, I do.

T H O M A S   S K R A B K E,

65 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And for the record, state your name, your business address, and your professional licenses.
2. MR. SKRABLE: Thomas Skrable, S‑K‑R‑A‑B‑L‑E.

Business address is 65 Ramapo Valley Road in Mahwah, New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York and New Jersey; New Jersey since, I believe, 1992. 

1. MR. MARTIN: And you've previously testified before planning boards in the State of New Jersey.
2. MR. SKRABLE: Yes, throughout the northern portion of New Jersey, southern New York State. I'm currently the land use board engineer for the Borough of Old Tappan. I have been for many years.  I have testified before this board, although there seems to be a lot of new faces, but I have testified before this board before. 
3. MR. MARTIN: And your bachelor's degree is in civil engineering?
4. MR. SKRABLE: Civil engineering, yes.
5. MR. MARTIN: Any (inaudible)?
6. MR. SKRABLE: No.
7. MR. MARTIN: I so qualify as a professional engineer. Thank you.
8. MR. SKRABLE: Thank you very much.
9. MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, MR. MARTIN. (Whereupon, Subdivision Plan dated 2/27/17, Last Revised 3/10/17 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑1 for identification.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. RUTHERFORD:

Q.MR. SKRABLE, you've prepared the subdivision plan before the board and, for the record, the plan is dated ‑‑ I'm missing the date, I'm sorry ‑‑ February 27th, 2017.  And there's one revision date, which is March 10th, 2017; is that correct?

1. A. Yes.
2. Q. And then that's based upon a survey of the property. And then you've shown a subdivision plan that shows the existing improvements.

And you have shown, for purposes of illustration, two proposed homes will be (inaudible); is that correct?

1. A. Yes.
2. Q. So for the record, and I know this is on the plan but so that we can make a record, can you describe Lot 13.01 as it presently exists by dimension and area?
3. A. Yes. It's basically an L‑shaped lot with 200 of frontage on Mountain Avenue. The L is at the back of the lot heading towards the south. The existing total lot area's 80,000 square feet, so it's significantly larger than the minimum required by the zone.
4. Q. And it has 200 feet frontage along Mountain Avenue and we're 325‑feet deep on the north and then the L‑shape is 100 by 150; is that correct?
5. A. Yes.
6. Q. And that's where the pool is located or tennis court?
7. A. Tennis court, yes.
8. Q. You heard my opening statement where I indicated that the existing improvements on the property, namely the existing dwelling, the detached garage, the accessory building, the tennis court, and the pool will all be demolished if this subdivision plan if it's approved; is that correct?
9. A. Yeah. And the plan's noted as such.
10. Q. And just generally ‑‑ before you get into the specifics, just generally describe the topography of the property.
11. A. North is more or less toward the top of the drawing, so Mountain Avenue's on the east side.

The property basically slopes from east to west, Goffle Brook is several hundred feet to the west of the property, probably another 30 or 40 feet longer than the lowest elevation on the property. Just to give you a feel for it, the elevation at the front is about 216, and the elevation in the back is 192.  So you're dropping about 24 feet on 325, so maybe a 7 or 8 percent slope approximately throughout the site, or average throughout the site. 

1. Q. And you have shown in the hash mark areas, towards the rear on the westerly side of the property, the areas that are "steep slopes," as that term is defined in the zoning ordinance of the Village of Ridgewood; is that correct?
2. A. Yeah. We have some minor areas that are just over 20 percent sloped and those are the areas that are hatched on the drawing, basically behind the pool on the northerly lot and on the street side of the tennis court on the southerly lot.
3. Q. And to the southerly side of the tennis court as well?
4. A. Yes.
5. Q. Do those areas of steep slopes impact in any way the anticipated development areas where the new homes and garages will be built?
6. A. No. We do not propose to touch any of those steep slope areas.
7. Q. Okay. And you've shown then, on subdivision ‑‑ on the plans, a proposed subdivision of 13.01 so as to create two lots. And what I'd like you to do is ‑‑ I think you've shown them as proposed Lot 13.01 and proposed Lot 13.02; is that correct?
8. A. Yes.
9. Q. So what I'd like you to do for the record ‑‑ I know it's on the zoning table, but for the record, just go through Lot 13.01 by way of its dimensions and the area proposed within the first 200 feet and the area over the entire lot.
10. A. The proposed Lot 13.01 is the northerly lot at the top of the drawing, and that's being proposed as a rectangular lot, 325 feet by 100. So the gross area is 32,500 square feet.

Within the first 200, we have 20,000 square feet or 200 by 100, so that is one of the variances that we're requesting; 25,000 is required. The lot with the setback is 100 feet.  That's the second variance that we're requesting. 

1. Q. What's required there?
2. A. 125.
3. Q. Okay. Thank you.
4. A. The lot depth, we are compliant we're 325‑feet deep. The buildable area rectangle and the usable area rectangle, we are deficient on those, again, because of the reduced width that we're requesting. So those are the third and fourth variances that we're requesting.

And all of the other bulk criteria, we will comply with.

1. Q. And with respect to the buildable and usable area, we are deficient as to width, but we are compliant as to depth of both of those; is that correct?
2. A. Yes, right.
3. Q. And you heard my opening statement, where I suggested one of the purposes of the buildable and usable areas is to ensure that lots are created in a uniform size. And that's certainly the case here. The northerly most lot is essentially rectangular and the other one is L‑shaped, but these are very regularly shaped lots; is that accurate to say?
4. A. Yeah. It's an exact rectangle. It's a very uniformed shaped lot.
5. Q. Okay. Then if you can go through the proposed Lot 13.02, and that's the lot to the south; the L‑shaped lot to the south.
6. A. Correct. So basically, it's the same situation as the northerly lot, 100 by 325, plus we're adding the L‑shaped area that was existing for the, you know, current lot.

So the net lot area of 13.02 is 47,500, because a little bit of the L‑shape is included in the first 200, our lot area within the first 200 is 22,500, which is slightly larger than 13.01, but still a variance request. It has the same lot width, the same buildable area rectangle and the same usable area rectangle, so we're requesting essentially the same variances on 13.02.

1. Q. And you concluded the note on the right‑hand side of your drawing somewhere in the middle, you've done a coverage by above‑grade structure, improved coverage calculation, and that shows the illustrative or proposed ‑‑ not necessarily proposed, but the homes that could be built on this property without variance relief; is that correct?
2. A. Yes. We've ‑‑ we've basically taken a plan that Mr. Jennee's used successfully in the past, I believe, within the village, and modified it slightly. So you're looking at 2,249‑square‑foot footprint for the dwelling with detached garage of 672 square feet, related driveway or walkway, equipment paths. And those numbers are shown just to show that we can provide a reasonably sized and appropriate dwelling to the neighborhood and still fall well within the zoning criteria. 
3. Q. And those coverages that we've shown for the garage and the dwelling and then the balance of the improvements for a total 4912 is far, far less than what's permitted in the zone given the size of these lots; is that correct?
4. A. Yes.
5. Q. Okay.
6. A. We can theoretically build the proposed improvements we're showing and leave the tennis courts simply under the required improvement coverage. And we're not proposing that, but I'm just saying that by ‑‑ by illustration, that there's significantly more impervious coverage left on the lots that we're not intending to use.
7. Q. From an engineering perspective, do you anticipate any difficulties in developing these lots with respect to utility service or anything else? We've talked about slopes earlier, slopes aren't going to be an issue for where the houses would be placed. Any other issues that you see from an engineering perspective that might make it difficult or impractical to develop these lots?
8. A. No, all utilities are available and on (inaudible). And when I gave you that average slope before, that actually includes the steeper area in the rear. So the front of the lot is the flat part, where we're proposing to build the homes, so there's no engineering issues as far as developing these lots as shown.
9. Q. And you have had an opportunity to review MR. RUTISHAUSER's report dated August 1st of 2017?
10. A. Yes.
11. Q. You reviewed that earlier?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MR. RUTHERFORD, two more minutes the board will (inaudible)?  

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. Thank you.
2. MR. MARTIN: Shall I mark the drawing?
3. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. I put a label ‑‑ I put a label on the drawing, A‑1.
4. MR. MARTIN: Great. Thank you.
5. MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

(Whereupon, Report of Christopher   Rutishauser dated August 1, 2017, is received and marked as Exhibit B‑1 for identification.)  

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. So I've marked MR. RUTISHAUSER's report as ‑‑ as B‑1 and my initials and the date.

BY MR. RUTHERFORD: 

1. Q. So we went through that earlier. We don't have to go through each items, but is there anything in there that you feel would be a problem or that the applicant could not comply with, should this application be approved when it comes time to develop these lots?
2. A. No. We've discussed it with the applicant. He's agreed to all of the items in the report, including the application of the tree ordinance should that come to pass.
3. Q. Okay. One of the issues that was a question as to whether or not the proposed subdivision would require a major soil removal permit, I know you haven't done detailed soil movement calculations, but do you see a soil ‑‑ a major soil moving permit working here?
4. A. No.
5. Q. Okay. And anything else in here that you ‑‑ the rest of this stuff that either can be ‑‑ or certainly can be and will be complied with should the application being approved.
6. A. No. With grading, we understand that individual plot plans for these lots will be required and reviewed by your engineering department, that would include the drainage details, grading details soil erosion, sediment control. All that's understood and we agree.
7. Q. And similarly, we've ‑‑ you've had an opportunity to review the report of Brigette Bogart the board's planner that's dated June 6th, 2017. Again, in terms of issues relating to landscaping and snow fence, silt fence and things of that nature, we have no issue with complying with any of those issues as well; is that correct?
8. A. Correct.
9. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTHERFORD, could we mark that as B‑2?
10. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, MR. MARTIN, thank you. B‑2. I did put my initials and the date.  Thank you. 

(Whereupon, Report of Bridgette Bogart dated June 6, 2017, is received and marked as Exhibit B‑2 for identification.)

BY MR. RUTHERFORD: 

1. Q. Anything else, MR. SKRABLE, that you want to add?
2. A. No.
3. Q. The only think I would notice you have included an area of map in the upper‑right‑hand corner which does show the location of Marlborough Road and it also shows Goffle Brook that you referred to earlier.
4. A. Yes. And we actually did walk the site, just to make sure there were no wetlands issues and your planner, your engineer can certainly speak for themselves, but I think we're all in agreement that there's no wetlands issues anywhere near the subject property.
5. MR. RUTHERFORD: I think that's all I have of MR. SKRABLE, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff, we'll start with you. 

Do you have any questions?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. So, the adjoining lot ‑‑ lots to the north of you, what's the width of those lots?  Do you have ‑‑ do you have figures on those widths?  I know you've mentioned that it's probably similar in width to some of the other lots.  Tell me about that. 

THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. PREISS will address this in greater detail.  But the four lots to the north are all 100‑feet wide.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: They are?

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. It's hard to read off the tax map. He has an exhibit that's going to show a very detailed analysis of all the lots in the area ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  Great.

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ that will...

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  And can you get into some more specifics, I would guess, on the (c)(2) variance ‑‑

THE WITNESS: MR. PREISS will address that, yes. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. 

And then the size of the homes in this area, I know you're proposing 200‑some‑odd (sic) square feet for these two homes; is that right?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, what was that number.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It looks like 22 ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yeah.  That's a footprint, so the ‑‑ the actual floor area will be about 4,000, something like that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, okay.  And is that going to be consistent with the homes in that area as well on the size of these homes? 

THE WITNESS: I believe so.  I know ‑‑ I know our planner has done a little bit more analysis as far as that goes, but just based on my looking at all of the adjacent properties, I would say they're consistent, yes. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  And the setbacks of the homes as well is probably pretty consistent from what you're doing from the road, itself? 

THE WITNESS: The front yard? 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, the front yard setback.  That'll be consistent as well? 

THE WITNESS: I don't remember them being inconsistent.  That's all I can say.  I'm sorry. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, I know if you can just find that out and see if ‑‑ see if they're built to be consistent (inaudible). 

THE WITNESS: I think there's an aerial that you'll see later so ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. 

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ that'll help.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And then referring to Chris Rutishauser's review, there was a question on historical evidence suggests groundwater may be an issue with regards to sighting.  I'm wondering if, Chris, can you help me understand what that ‑‑ what that means? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: We don't have any information as to whether there's rock immediately underneath the surface of the soil. On a sloped property like that, you can have seeps on lower elevations and it can be a current issue. There may be something that occurs that's generally something readily addressed (inaudible). 
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah.  That's it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. 

1. MR. MARTIN: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No questions (inaudible). 

1. MR. MARTIN: Melanie?
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think for the moment, I'm fine. I know you mentioned there'll be no movement of ‑‑ there's nothing planned for the rear of the property. It's kind of (inaudible) currently, and it does say in the report that there are wetlands in the rear of the property.  So I would just be concerned that there ‑‑ that nothing happen at a later point or make sure they have to seek a variance to do any other work. 

THE WITNESS: We don't plan any.  We'll just be removing the structures that are there, topsoil and seeding.  Any wetlands are literally along the ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I can see that ‑‑

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ bank of the stream.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yeah.

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ so it's a couple hundred feet away.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right. I would be more concerned with a homeowner, that shows a ‑‑ a new homeowner that wanted to, you know, make improvements to the property. But I guess that would come up at a later point.  So I think for the moment I'm okay.
2. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

1. MS. ALTANO: Yeah. How old are the structures you are going to be demoing?

THE WITNESS: How old are they?

1. MS. ALTANO: Yeah. Roughly?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. 

1. MS. ALTANO: Only ‑‑ I'm only concerned about if you guys checked to see if there's any kind of abatement that needs to be done and that that should be consummated when you do the demolition.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? 

1. MS. ALTANO: Is it ‑‑ when you go ‑‑ while you go to demolition of the existing building, do you know if there's any hazardous material that needs to be encapsulated while you're doing the demolition?

THE WITNESS: Not yet. 

1. MS. ALTANO: Do you foresee any abatement?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if there are to be honest, but I know that that's a standard requirement.  If there's any asbestos pipe insulation or any asbestos shingles or anything like that, that will be handled during the demolition permit process and the applicant will be required to handle those lawfully.

1. MS. ALTANO: Because that's I mean that's my concern. That's (inaudible).
2. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: One question regarding the tennis court, it looks like it's surrounded by a brick retaining wall with some steps up to it? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Are you intending to keep that retaining wall or how are you going to ‑‑ you said you're just going to remove the tennis court and put topsoil there.  Are you keeping the retaining wall or are you going to level out that area? 

THE WITNESS: We're intending to remove the wall as well and level it out.  It's not in the greatest shape. 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So won't that affect the steep slope areas that are adjacent to it? 

THE WITNESS: We'll actually be lessening the slope by filling in that ‑‑ the vert ‑‑ wherever the vertical wall is, that will now become lesser slopes so ‑‑

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So you're actually going to reduce the amount of steep slope area as part of this demolition? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: All right.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  I don't have any questions. 

Chris, do you have any questions?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not at this time. I think the applicant's engineer already pretty much agree with what I presented in my memo.
2. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, just in case ‑‑ do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.

C H R I S T O P H E R J.   R U T H I S H A U S E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And, MR. RUTHERFORD, do you stipulate to MR. RUTISHAUSER being the professional engineer for the village?
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Absolutely, yes, sir.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The review was pretty straightforward, there's nothing really complex about this subdivision. The planner issue that Bridgette looked at maybe we'll cover that in the engineering.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  Brigette, did you have any questions for MR. SKRABLE? 

1. MR. BOGART: I just have two questions.
2. MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible). Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
3. MR. BOGART: I go.

B R I D G E T T E   B O G A R T, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And you stipulate to MS. BOGART as a professional planner?
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I do, MR. MARTIN.
3. MR. MARTIN: Okay.
4. MR. BOGART: There's a note on the plans that say "steep slope areas greater than 20 percent will not be disturbed." It only points to one of those areas. You just testified that you'll be removing that wall and removing those other (inaudible) out.  Does that note apply to all the other areas or ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yeah.  That was intended to apply to all. 

1. MR. BOGART: Okay. Except for where you'll be removing the brick wall?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.  I mean, honestly, I assume that, you know, if we start at the top of the wall and fill it in, we'll not be disturbing the steep slope technically, but I guess there will be some minor intrusion into it in order to remove it.  But the intent is not to touch ‑‑

1. MR. BOGART: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ other than to remove it. 

1. MR. BOGART: I think from a technical perspective, you'll probably need a variance from the steep slope ordinance because there's going to be disturbance in the steep slope areas. And that wasn't noted in ‑‑ on my report. But I didn't realize that that was (inaudible). 

THE WITNESS: I mean, if the board felt strongly about that, we can leave the wall.  I just don't see any need for the wall if we're trying to create just an open backyard area.  But we can leave it up to the board and wherever you would like us to proceed. 

1. MR. BOGART: My second question actually is related because once you start to grade that out, it may impact some of the trees in that area. And I know you agreed to my comment with regard to tree preservation fencing but I think this is an site that warrants the identification of all ‑‑ I mean your trees that are going to be preserved and show the fencing on the plans just because there are a lot of big trees on the site that have a caliper of maybe 38, 40, you know, inches in caliper so I think that what needs to happen is you need to determine the grading of that area and what trees are going to be preserved.
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: To show them on the plan and then show tree preservation measures as well?
3. MS. BOGART: Correct.
4. MR. RUTHERFORD: And over what caliper tree do you think is appropriate?
5. MR. BOGART: It will be in accordance with the new ordinance.
6. MR. RUTHERFORD: With the new ordinance, okay.
7. MS. BOGART: Correct.

Which Andrew just told me is 8 inches.

Thank you. That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have any questions? 

1. MR. MARTIN: Not at this time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

Does anyone from the public have any questions for the engineer, MR. SKRABLE? 

Sure. Just come on up and state your name and your address. 

1. MR. WALKER: I'm actually Martin Walker.
2. MR. CAFARELLI: I'm sorry?
3. MR. WALKER: I live at 114 Cottage Place.
4. MR. CAFARELLI: I'm sorry. What was your name again? 
5. MR. WALKER: Martin Walker. I'm not sure which engineer I can direct the question to.
6. MR. MARTIN: MR. SKRABLE, he's THE WITNESS.
7. MR. WALKER: Okay.

My question goes to your argument that the Ridgewood Master Plan ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Ridgewood what? I'm sorry?
2. MR. WALKER: Master Plan, the Ridgewood Master Plan.
3. MR. MARTIN: Generally, not (inaudible) ‑‑
4. MR. WALKER: I ‑‑ because I noticed in this request, there's a request for a variance and I don't know exactly what that variance is, but I'm wondering where in the master plan there's a ‑‑ it says what kind of variances will be appropriate from that particular master plan.

THE WITNESS: I don't mean to cut you off, but I'm probably not the best person to answer that question.  I think that question should really be to our planner who will be the next person to testify. 

1. MR. WALKER: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  Do you have anything of an engineering nature or anything that he testified to that you want to ask him questions about? 

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. WALKER, can you give me your address again, please.
2. MR. WALKER: It's 114 Cottage Place.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: Thank you.
4. MR. WALKER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Call your next witness. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Richard Preiss, Mr. Chairman.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. 

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. PREISS, will you raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
2. MR. PREISS: I do.

R I C H A R D   P R E I S S, 33‑41 Newark Street, Hoboken, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And it's Richard P‑R‑I‑C‑E, correct?
2. MR. PREISS: P‑R‑E‑I‑S‑S.
3. MR. MARTIN: Okay. I did not see a report, so I apologize, P‑R‑E‑I‑S‑S.
4. MR. PREISS: S‑S?
5. MR. MARTIN: You're a professional planner?
6. MR. PREISS: I am.
7. MR. MARTIN: And what is your business address?
8. MR. PREISS: I'm with the firm of Phillips, Preiss, Grygiel LLC. Our address is 33‑41 Newark Street, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030.
9. MR. MARTIN: And you're a professional planner licensed in New Jersey?
10. MR. PREISS: I am.
11. MR. MARTIN: Any other states?
12. MR. PREISS: No. I believe there's only two states in the United States that have licensed planners. We have one commission in Nevada and the other one's Michigan. 
13. MR. MARTIN: And you received your master's in planning?
14. MR. PREISS: I have both a bachelor of science in town and regional planning and a master's degree in urban planning.
15. MR. MARTIN: And where'd you get your master's degree?
16. MR. PREISS: University of Oregon in 1980.
17. MR. MARTIN: And you've been accepted as a qualified professional planner before planning boards in Bergen County and other (inaudible)?
18. MR. PREISS: Yes.
19. MR. MARTIN: You've been ‑‑ testified in superior court?
20. MR. PREISS: Yes, numerous times.
21. MR. MARTIN: And regarding ‑‑ what's that matter on planning?
22. MR. PREISS: All as a ‑‑ as a planning expert, a range of issues, zoning and master plans, redevelopment, condemnation, and so forth. I'm also a municipal planner for a number of communities in New Jersey, including a number in Bergen County, Hillsdale, Woodcliff Lake, Harrington Park.
23. MR. MARTIN: And you are so qualified as a professional planner tonight. Thank you.
24. MR. RUTHERFORD?
25. MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, MR. MARTIN. DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. RUTHERFORD: 

1. Q. MR. PREISS, we're going to kind of do a little question and answer here, but I'd like you to first annunciate for the board the purpose of your appearance this evening and the scope of your assignment as given to you by the applicant.
2. A. Yes. The purpose of my investigation and testimony this evening is to evaluate the appropriateness of the (c) variances for minimum lot width, minimum buildable area, rectangle, and the buildable and usable area rectangle, and minimum lot size within 200 feet of the lot line, in connection with the proposed subdivision that is before the board. I spoke with of my review, I reviewed the existing survey, the proposed plot or site plan, the application. I physically inspected the site, the surrounding uses in the neighborhood.  I reviewed the Ridgewood Master Plan as it pertained to this area of the village.  I reviewed the Ridgewood Zoning Ordinances as it pertains to the application. And I consulted with the client as well as MR. SKRABLE and MR. RUTHERFORD in regards to the application. 
3. Q. So you're familiar with the property, and you visited it. You heard MR. SKRABLE's testimony earlier this evening with respect to the physical characteristics of the property. But in terms of your background information, maybe you could annunciate those characteristics of the property that you think are particularly relevant to this application.
4. A. Yes. I think the key is that the subject property is a significantly oversized lot being 80,000 square foot and being located in the R‑125 zone. As MR. SKRABLE indicated, this is at 246 Mountain Avenue, this area is predominated by single‑family homes. It also backs up on the Marlborough Road which is an unimproved or paper street beyond which is Gypsy Pond Park. 

And as MR. SKRABLE indicated, the site is currently developed with a 2.5‑story single‑family home with a detached garage, tennis court, and pool. The ‑‑ I don't know the exact age of the home, but it appears to be ‑‑ have been developed at about the same time other homes in the area have been developed.  It's probably, in my estimation, between 80 and 100 years old.  And it's not in the best condition currently.  So that is the ‑‑ the description of this ‑‑ this site as it currently exists. 

1. Q. And then you could describe for the board, please, the subdivision that the applicant proposes.
2. A. Yes. It's a minor subdivision to divide the property into two lots. Lot 13.01 would be 32,500 square feet in size, and proposed Lot 13.02 would be 47,500 square foot in size, which both are substantially in excess of the minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet. As MR. SKRABLE indicated the ‑‑ in all of the existing structures on the home would be demolished to make way for the new homes.  Each of these homes would have a detached garage to the rear, certified driveways which on the illustrative site plan or plot plan would be located on the interior side of the lot.  In other words, furthest away from the neighboring properties to the north and the south.  The proposed plot plan, which is shown as I indicated with certain illustrative purposes shows that both homes and the detached garages would require ‑‑ would comply with all of the requirements of the front, rear, and side yard setback, for lot coverage and building coverage and compliance with (inaudible) the Ridgewood zoning code.
3. Q. So what we've tried to show on the plan is consistent with MR. SKRABLE' s testimony and his notes that these are examples of what could be built. And to demonstrate to the board that the lot width variances that we're seeking will not adversely impact the applicant or another developer's ability to develop these lots with single‑family homes; is that correct?

1. That is correct.

In fact, the ‑‑ these particular lot sizes and the homes that are proposed are substantially consistent, there will be more testimony later on, substantially consistent with the homes that are located in the ‑‑ in the surrounding neighborhood in terms of their ‑‑ their size, their location, their setback and the fact that there are detached garages on ‑‑ on those properties.

So there's an indication that if this board granted the variances and the proposed subdivision, that the resulting two lots and the homes would be substantially consistent with the neighborhood.

1. Q. Okay. Now, we have identified four variances that are sought, the board is familiar with them, if you could just run down them very quickly?
2. A. Yes. Just a (inaudible) note that the both lots, not only meet the minimum lot area requirements, but are substantially in excess of that. And meets other dimensional requirements of the R‑125 zone, such as the minimum lot width within 200 feet of the lot line (inaudible) court. And the minimum lot depth, 160 feet is required 325 is ‑‑ is provided. 

For (c) variances where both lots would be deficient is with respect to minimum lot width at the front setback line. The requirement is 125 feet.  Both are ‑‑ 100 foot is proposed.  Minimum building area rectangle, the requirement is 80 foot by 70 foot, both lots would be 60 foot by 70 foot. The minimum usable area rectangle, the requirement is 100 by 160 foot, both would be ‑‑ would provide 80 by 160 foot.  And minimum lot area within 200 feet of the front lot line, the requirement is 25,000 square feet.  Lot 13.01 would be 20,000 square foot and Lot 13.02 would be 22,500 square foot. 

1. Q. Before you go on, just for a moment, earlier I had referred to and suggested to the board what the purpose ‑‑ or the planning purpose behind the buildable area and usable area provisions of the ordinance might be. So from a planning perspective, I'd like you to comment on that in terms of what's the purpose of those types of provisions. And, in your opinion, if the variances we seek for the width of those areas would be contrary to that purpose of defeat that purpose.
2. A. Yes. I think ‑‑ I think the main purpose of all of the requirements for which we're seeking the variance is to ensure that you have a lot of the size and the shape that permits a reasonably‑sized house in keeping with the spirit and intention of both the master plan and zoning ordinance to be provided in the neighborhood. And it's ‑‑ it's ‑‑ you know, the idea is to prevent a kind of gerrymandering of the lot or a very unusual shape or ‑‑ or width, so that a developer can squeeze the maximum out of an irregularly‑shaped piece of property.

In this situation, and as I will indicate both by way of exhibits and testimony, the lot shape, the lot size, their width, and all of the other dimensions that are proposed are substantially consistent with what is both envisioned in the master plan and zoning ordinance and is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. So in this particular situation, the variance is not being sought to create an unusually‑shaped lot in order to maximize the ‑‑ the development of the property.

1. Q. And we're talking about (c) variances, the Municipal Land Use Law provides two legal basis for the granting of a (c) variance. I know the board's familiar with them, but just for the record if you could just outline those (inaudible).
2. A. Right. The first is known as the (c)(1) or hardship variance and the other ‑‑ the second is the (c)(2) or the flexible variance or also known as the variance where the benefits of granting the variance would outweigh the detriments and the purposes of zoning would be advanced.

So those are the two affirmative criteria. It must be either one of those two criteria or both must satisfied in order for the board to grant the variances. 

1. Q. In your opinion, are both of those criteria satisfied in this case?
2. A. Yes. I think in particular in this case, the hardship variance is paramount.

But I do believe, at the end of the day, there will be benefits which would outweigh the detriments, so I believe the (c)(2) requirement ‑‑ (c)(2) criteria would also apply.

1. Q. Okay. So with respect to the (c)(1), we'll focus on the (c)(1) variance for a moment, which is essentially hardship based upon something exceptional or peculiar or unusual about the property, correct?
2. A. Yes.
3. Q. What are the ‑‑ based upon the facts that we've developed thus far ‑‑
4. A. Yes.

Q.‑‑ do you think those facts support a (c)(1) application?

312. A. Yes. In this case, the variance for not meeting the minimum required lot width, the minimum buildable rectangle, usable rectangle and minimum lot area within 200 feet of the front lot line or what I'd refer to the classic (c)(1) hardship under the Municipal Land Use Law. And I'm quoting from that N.J.S.A 40:55D‑70, (c)(1)(a) where the ‑‑ a bulk variance may be granted ‑‑ I'm quoting from that particular section: "By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property the strict application of any regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of the property." In this case, we have a single lot of 80,000 square foot which is more than three times the required minimum lot area of 25,000 square foot in the zone, where the applicant wishes to subdivide the property into two parcels, one in which is 32,500 and the other which is 47,500 square foot, both would substantially exceed this requirement.  In both cases, all four of the required lawful requirements would be met if each lot were 125‑feet wide instead of 100‑feet wide. Not only would each of the lots meet the minimum lot width at the setback, but also the minimum buildable rectangle, the minimum usable rectangle and the minimum lot size within 200 feet of the front lot line would also be met if the lots were 125‑feet wide.  So the deficiency related to the minimum lot width and other dimensional deficiencies is a result of the physical layout of the existing lot, which is 200‑feet wide, the first 175 feet of depth, and then widest to 300 feet for the remaining 150 feet of depth.  Because of this layout, only one lot is permissible that fully meets with the dimensional requirements of the zone, whereas with respect to lot size, the existing lot is over 300 percent, actually 312.5 percent, over the minimum lot area.  So per the lot area requirements, with the correct dimensions, three lots and three homes would be permissible where it's only one fully conforming lot is permitted.
313. Q. So it's ‑‑ in your estimation, it's the shape of the property, the fact that it's only 200 feet in width, where if you were to get two conforming lots, it would have to be 250, is what brings the applicant before the board. Obviously, we're here for a subdivision.
314. A. Right.
315. Q. But your ‑‑ your opinion is based upon the factors relating to the lot itself?
316. A. Correct.
317. Q. Correct?
318. A. That ‑‑ that is correct. It's ‑‑ it's relating to the particular physical conditions of the property, itself. So per the proposed subdivision, proposed Lot 13.01, we exceed the minimum lot requirement by 30 percent, and proposed Lot 13.02, we exceed the minimum lot area requirements by 91 ‑‑ 90 percent. If you look at the case law, it indicates that a hardship case or a (c)(1) case is ‑‑ is applicable to the proposed subdivision.  I'm sure the board's attorney and some members of board may be familiar with Cox and Koenig's classic, what we refer to the Bible of land use which is known as New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration.  I looked at the 2016 version where the following is indicated.  It says ‑‑
319. MR. MARTIN: Jonathan Drill is actually one of the commentators now and the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Jonathan Drill and Lisa John‑Basta are the two ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes, Jonathan Drill has taken the book, I believe.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, the 17th edition still references Mr. Cox and Mr. Koenig for sure in big letters, but they're now acknowledging actually Mr. Drill, Mr. Jonathan Drill's contribution to it.
2. MR. MARTIN: I'm (inaudible) purchased so I don't get lost on the (inaudible) testified.

You're saying exceptional narrowness is terms of the (c)(1), is that one of the aspects you're defining?

THE WITNESS: Yes, exceptional narrowness and shape of the property, correct. Just going back to page 622 of the 2016 version of the book that I just quoted, it indicates the following:  "The term undue hardship has been variously interpreted by the Lang v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 160 NJ 41:53‑55‑56 (1999).  The Court made it clear that it                                       refers solely to particular physical conditions of the property as those described in subsection (c)(1) of the statue." And as MR. RUTHERFORD indicated, the particular physical condition of the subject property that creates the hardship is its unusual shape.  The fact that it's narrow and deep in the front being 200‑feet wide, by 325‑feet deep with a projection of 50 by 150 proportion to the rear of Lot 14 to its south.  So when one subdivides the property into two lots which considerably exceed the minimum lot area, it results in two lots, both of which are 100‑feet wide versus 125‑feet wide at the front yard setback as required by zoning.  Because of this deficiency, with regards to the minimum lot width, the two proposed lots also require variances for minimum buildable and usable rectangles and minimum lot areas within 200 foot of the front line.  The hardship ‑‑ the (c)(1) hardship that I've been referring to in this case is also described in Cox in the case of Pereira vs. Randolph Township Planning Board, where it indicates that the hardship is the substantial underutilization of the property resulting from the unusual shape of the property, relative to the zoning requirements.  In other words, in this case, the strict application of the zoning requirements results in less than one‑third of the permitted density or intensity of use, permitting only one lot and one house, whereas three lots or three houses would result if the property were wider and shallower.  In other words, if the property were 375‑feet wide by 200‑feet deep, 80,000 square feet, or two lots if the houses were 250‑feet wide by 324 ‑‑ 320‑feet deep.  Also, I want to point out that in the discussion in Cox under the ‑‑ under the (c)(1) hardship standards, the applicant need not show that the property has been zoned into inutility.  In other words, it has been deprived of all reasonable use of the property.  It only needs show that the unique characteristics inhibit the extent to which the property can be used, which is clearly the case here.  So in summary, the denial of the variance for lot width and the three other (c) variances, in my opinion, would result in a substantial undue hardship, a substantial underutilization of the property due to its particular physical condition of the property as described in (c)(1)(a) of the statute.  So that is the ‑‑ the (c)(1) criteria.  With respect to the (c)(2) criteria, in terms of the better zoning alternative ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Let me ‑‑ MR. PREISS, let me just stop you there.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTHERFORD, just as to the (c)(1), just the Carriage case, 256 NJ Super. 656, on self‑created hardship under (c)(1). In fact, that court ‑‑ the appellate court remanded it back to talk about (c)(2). 

So I would just suggest to the board, continue to pay attention to the (c)(2) aspect of this because I ‑‑ I look at this as more of a (c)(2) (inaudible). 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. That's fine. Yeah, we'll ‑‑ we'll address that. 

BY MR. RUTHERFORD: 

1. Q. MR. PREISS, the (c)(2)?
2. A. In terms of the (c) (2), the ‑‑ the applicant has demonstrated that the variance grant would result in a better zoning alternative. I don't want to get too far in to myself. I do have an exhibit which addresses, to a large extent, the ‑‑ the negative criteria. But, essentially, if you look at the neighborhood, predominantly lots which were ‑‑ are within 200 feet of the subject property, the 200 feet being the area where notice is required under the Municipal Land Use Law for variances in site plan.  And also within 500 feet of the property, which plans often utilize as the definition of the neighborhood, the predominant size of the lots in ‑‑ in those two particular areas within 200 feet and 500 foot, is 100‑foot wide.  And so the ‑‑ the houses that would be built on these lots, their location, their width, their setback, and their dimensions would be substantially consistent with the neighborhood whereas the subject property under the existing condition is oversized and not in keeping with the predominant lot size and lot dimensions within ‑‑ within the neighborhood. 
3. Q. So you ‑‑ and your exhibit is going to address that in greater detail, plus also the negative criteria, but this can be done and improved without substantial detriment ‑‑
4. A. That's correct.

In fact, I think just so that I'll ‑‑ I'll hand out my exhibit and I'll go through that now.

1. MR. MARTIN: We're marking this A‑2?
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. I have it labeled, MR. MARTIN.

(Whereupon, "Analysis of properties in the surrounding area which are nonconforming   with regard to requirements of the minimum lot      width, buildable area rectangle, usable area rectangle, lot width within 200 feet of front                  lot line, RC Jennee Construction Company, subdivision application," Prepared by Phillips, Preiss, Grygiel, LLC, dated June 2017, was received and marked as Exhibit A‑2      for identification.)

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: I'll tried to keep (inaudible) ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ exhibits here.

THE WITNESS: Let me first identify the exhibit which was prepared both by me and under my direction by a firm. The cover page identifies it under the following title: "Analysis of properties in the surrounding area which are nonconforming with regard to requirements of the minimum lot width, the buildable area rectangle, usable area rectangle, lot width within 200 feet of front lot line.  RC Jennee Construction Company, subdivision application."  It was prepared by Phillips, Preiss, Grygiel, LLC, Planning and Real Estate Consultants, dated June 2017. 

BY MR. RUTHERFORD: 

1. Q. And to that, fair to say that the basis ‑‑ this exhibit is based upon the tax map for the Village of Ridgewood, correct?
2. A. Yes.
3. Q. So it's the area where this property's located?
4. A. Yes.
5. Q. Okay.
6. A. So the ‑‑ as I indicated just previously, we looked at the pattern of subdivision of all four of the conditions, the lot width, buildable area rectangle, usable area rectangle, and lot area within 200 feet of the lot line, for properties which are within 200 feet of the subject property, the subject property is identified as the wide L‑shaped lot in the center exhibit on ‑‑ on Figure 1 through Figure 6, I believe ‑‑ Figure 8. And it also shows the proposed subdivision line showing proposed Lot 13.01 and 13.02. So the Figure 1 shows the deficient lot width at the front yard setback, and these are properties within ‑‑ which either touch or are wholly within 200 feet of the subject property. And within this area, there are 12 properties.  There are two which are ‑‑ which conform to the minimum lot width of 125 foot at the front setback line and there are 10 properties which are nonconforming with respect to that condition. 
7. Q. And just go back for a moment. The ones that are ‑‑ that are shown as nonconforming, those lots are all 100 feet in width; is that correct?
8. A. They're all 100 feet in width, correct.
9. Q. Okay.
10. A. Some of them don't have quite the same area in depth as can be seen of that exhibit, but you're correct. All of the ones that are nonconforming are also 100 foot in depth.
11. Q. And, basically, on the west side of Mountain Avenue between Cantrell down to the 500‑foot radius line that you're going to get to in a moment, they're all 100 foots?
12. A. Yes. In fact, if you turn the page on Figure 2, it shows properties which are within 500 foot of the ‑‑ of the subject property. And in this case, there are up to 29 properties. Only seven are conforming or 24 percent are conforming with respect to lot width at the front setback line and 22 are nonconforming or 76 percent.  So there's a substantial degree of nonconformity.  Particularly properties fronting on Mountain Avenue.
13. Q. Is it accurate to say in Figure 2 that four of the seven complying lots actually front on Highland Avenue, still in the neighborhood ‑‑
14. A. Certainly.
15. Q. ‑‑ admittedly in the neighborhood, but not on Mountain Avenue; is that right?
16. A. Yes. And the reason why we did this is, you know, generally, the focus is on the area within 200 foot, but we wanted to show the larger area. Quite frankly, I think your point is well taken that there's a  different sensibility in terms of the size of houses and the size of lots on Highland Avenue that there are on Mountain Avenue, but we just wanted to show that even within the 500‑foot radius, the predominance of the nonconforming condition is with respect to the lot width. And then I'll just go quickly through the remaining figures. Then we looked at the deficiencies with respect to the three other condition.  So Figure 3 is deficient minimum building area rectangle within 200 foot.  Figure 4 is within 500 foot.  And, again, the same percentages of nonconformity.  Only two of the properties are conforming and ten are nonconforming.  Our part ‑‑ in Figure 3, that's within 200 foot.  Within 500 foot of the 29 properties, 7 are nonconforming and 22 are nonconforming at 76 percent degree of nonconformity.  And, once again, predominantly, those are with frontage on Highland Avenue. 

Figure 5 and Figure 6 is deficient minimum buildable usable rectangle within 200 foot, and I won't repeat it, but it's the same lots are deficient with respect to those with the same percentages within 200 and 500 foot. And then lastly, Figure 7 and Figure 8, deficiencies with regard to the minimum lot within 200 foot of the front lot line.  Figure 7 being lots within 200 foot and Figure 8 being lots within 500 foot of the subject property.  So, essentially, with regard to the (c)(2) criteria, the benefits outweigh the detriments is the proposed subdivision will bring this lot into great conformity with the lots in the surrounding area and ‑‑ which is one of the purposes of zoning is to create consistency in the residential neighborhood. 

1. Q. With respect ‑‑ COUNCILMAN VOIGT had a comment earlier about ‑‑ or a question about prevailing setbacks on Mountain Avenue as well as, for lack of a better word, prevailing house size on Mountain Avenue. Again, we've shown two illustrative homes here to demonstrate that we can build houses without variances. In your estimation, are the proposed setbacks shown there and the size of those houses compatible with the other homes on Mountain Avenue.  And if you can comment on that? 
2. A. Yes, my ‑‑ my recollection is I didn't specifically mention that because it ‑‑ it wasn't a variance that was required. My sense is from having visited Mountain Avenue area, my recollection is that none of the existing houses are forward of that setback line, many are at that setback line.

There are a number of houses on that street where the setback is ‑‑ is ‑‑ is greater as well.

So there's not a consistency where they all line up. But this one certainly wouldn't be forward or back from a number of houses both on the same side of the street and on the other street.

That's my recollection.

1. Q. And with respect to the density, you pointed out earlier that even with the subdivision, the density in terms of the ratio of one dwelling unit per area is much less than what has always been contemplated in the zone?
2. A. Yes. When I was looking at the ‑‑ the negative criteria with regard to the (c) variances, not only will the two lots fully conform with the required minimum lot area, but meet the other requirements such as minimum front, rear, side yard setback, the permitted building height, building lot coverage, that will be consistent with the zoning. But there also won't be a violation with the intensity contemplated by the zoning, which is one house per 2500 square foot. In fact, the average lot size here is 41 house ‑‑ per 40,000 square foot, or ‑‑ an intensity that is less than that which the zoning permits. So if the variance is granted, certainly, this won't result in a higher density than the zoning or the master plan contemplates or expects in this particular area. 
3. Q. To go back to the hardship a moment ‑‑ for just a moment, essentially now we have one lot, one house on 80,000 square feet, which is a density far, far less than what's contemplated by the ordinance.
4. A. It's ‑‑ it's less than 1/3 of the density permitted and contemplated by the ordinance.
5. Q. And, finally, albeit, we are here for variances because of the subdivision, but in your estimation as a planner, that ‑‑ that factor in and of itself is clearly not determined, as you mentioned earlier, that you would need not show that the property's been zoned into inutility in order to entitle yourself to a variance; is that correct?
6. A. That's correct.
7. Q. It overstates the burden that an applicant has?
8. A. That's correct.

The hardship in this particular case consistent with the state ‑‑ with the case law is that there ‑‑ the ‑‑ in order to fully conform with all of the zoning requirements, there would be a substantial underutilization of the property. Only one house on an 80,000‑square‑foot lot whereas the zoning contemplates as many as three houses on a lot ‑‑ on the area this size.  So the two houses on 80,000 square foot or an average of 40,000 square foot is a reasonable utilization of the property in light of the zoning, and something which could be corrected if the variances were granted. 

1. Q. Anything else?
2. A. Yeah. Just with regard to the negative criteria, I just want to point out that as MR. SKRABLE indicated, I just want to reiterate that the lots, even though they're going to be 100‑foot versus 125‑foot wide, will allow for a reasonably‑sized home, a properly configured driveway, parking, conforming setbacks, open space in the front, to the side and to the rear, consistent with that ‑‑ with the intent of the zoning ordinance and that which exists in the ‑‑ in the neighborhood.

So, as shown on the plot plan, if the variances were granted, the houses would then be built on each of these lots would not be any closer to the neighborhood ‑‑ neighbors to the side or to the rear, any closer to the street than required or be taller or larger than that contemplated by the zoning because they won't permit the ‑‑ they won't exceed the permitted height or the building coverage nor cover a greater ‑‑ cover the lot with a greater impervious coverage than contemplated by the zoning. At the same time, the lots are regularly configured and allow for a fairly sizable home, which is consistent with the neighborhood.  So in my opinion, there'd be no harm to the purpose and intent to the Ridgewood zone plan. And as I indicated, based on the exhibit, I don't believe that our lots would have any harm or create detriment to the public, that is, to the surrounding properties or the neighborhood at large.  So, I don't believe ‑‑ I believe that the negative criteria can be satisfied, that the variance will not have a substantial detriment to either the public good or the zone plan. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: That's all I have for MR. PREISS, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
2. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, just a (inaudible) question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, sure.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTHERFORD, am I missing something? I saw three variances for each property so six total, I believe. MR. PREISS probably (inaudible) somewhere said there were four variances required for each property?
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. There's four for each. There's ‑‑ there's lot width ‑‑
3. MR. MARTIN: I got that one.
4. MR. RUTHERFORD: There's lot area within 200 feet of the front lot line ‑‑
5. MR. MARTIN: Hang on a second.
6. MR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ which is the function of the width, but that's ‑‑ the ordinance says you're supposed to have 20 ‑‑ 20 ‑‑ let me check ‑‑
7. MR. MARTIN: All right.
8. MR. RUTHERFORD: ‑‑ it's 25,000 within the first 200 feet. We're deficient on both of these.

And then it's the ‑‑ and then it's the width of the buildable area and the usable area, so it's four variances. The same four variances for each lot. 

1. MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I have lot width. I have usable/buildable area, and minimum ‑‑ the minimum usable area rectangle, Bridgette, do you know which I'm missing?
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: It's lot area within 200 feet.
3. MR. MARTIN: Lot, width, front yard setback within 200 feet of the front lot line, is that ‑‑
4. MR. RUTHERFORD: Lot area. Yeah, lot area within 200 feet of the front lot line.
5. MR. MARTIN: All right.
6. MS. BOGART: Lot width within 200 feet of the front lot line which is 100, you don't need that variance.

THE WITNESS: No.  The lot variance needed for each one is there's a requirement that the minimum lot area within 200 feet of the front lot line is supposed to be 25,000 square foot.  Lot 13.01 in that first 200 foot is only 20,000 square foot and in the case of Lot 13.02 is 22,500 square foot.  So those are the two additional variances that are required.  And might I just add something, Mr. Chairman?  Brigette identified potentially another variance related to disturbance of the steep slope, and in planning terms, I believe that that could be granted under the (c)(2) criteria where the benefits outweigh the detriments.  To avoid that variance, the retaining wall would have to be retained without the tennis court, which doesn't seem to serve any function and the homeowner ‑‑ the applicant's intent is to regrade that area and bring it back to essentially the grade that existed prior to the building of the tennis court to reseed and to replant that so that that area would be restored to its previous condition. 

I believe that there's a benefit to that which outweighs the small disturbance to that particular lot area. So if that variance is required, that would be the basis for the granting of that variance as well. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff, do you have any questions? 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, I have a question.  We are ‑‑ I guess we're to decide either the (c)(1) or the (c)(2).  Are you proffering both for this or are we proffering one for this for us to evaluate? 

THE WITNESS: Well, we're proffering both.  I believe that either one could stand on its own in terms of the justification.  You don't have to approve both.  And in my opinion, the ‑‑ the (c)(1) hardship is ‑‑ is the stronger of the two, but I believe that the ‑‑ this is a better zoning alternative, and I certainly believe that the benefits of granting this variance outweigh the detriments. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So, if you're not convinced that it's a (c)(1), I would certainly agree that a (c)(2) is also a basis for a justification of the variance. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, Chris, what do we do here?  Do we just decide ‑‑ if we decide in the end which of these we would evaluate either the (c)(1) or (c)(2)?  Is that how we do this?

1. MR. MARTIN: I agree with that 100 percent, Jeff. I believe Bridgette could weigh in.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: However, the ‑‑ MR. RUTHERFORD is proffering on behalf of his client (c)(1) and (c)(2). If neither apply, that's not good for them.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Uh‑huh.

1. MR. MARTIN: If one or the other applies, it's okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: But Bridgette could probably narrow in the issues. I just see, again, a law is actually a little bit different from a planning perspective ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ maybe the planner may have a planner (inaudible).

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, well, you had ‑‑ you had mentioned under the (c)(2) one of the court cases that had (inaudible) the (c)(1) and they were using (c)(2).

1. MR. MARTIN: That's ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So (inaudible).  Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  Okay. 

All right. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Susan? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I don't have anything (inaudible). 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think for the moment I don't have any questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: One question:  Would you consider the existing lot to be underutilized? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Would you consider the existing lot to be underutilized? 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, I'm sorry.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So you consider a lot that have a large 2.5 story dwelling, with a front porch, a back porch, a detached garage, a greenhouse, a tennis court with a retaining wall, and a pool with a patio to be underutilized? 

THE WITNESS: I'm not looking at the ‑‑ at the physical structures on the property.  I'm looking at the utilization from a zoning point of view.  So from ‑‑ the utilization from a zoning point of view, the zoning contemplates or would allow three houses or three lots and the fact that you only have one house and one lot is, in my opinion, a substantial underutilization of the property. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can we just go back to that lot being three lots, three houses? 

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Kind of walk us through that again. 

THE WITNESS: It ‑‑ you have 80,000 square foot of total lot area, and the minimum lot requirements in the zone is 25,000 square foot.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But ‑‑ but I think, I just want to kind of challenge that thinking because obviously you can't ‑‑ you have a property that has depth, so is it really fair to look at the whole lot when you can only get a certain width out of it? 

THE WITNESS: You've just stated my case perfectly the way I have stated.  Basically because of the shape of the property, you can only get one conforming lot.  So the 80,000 ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, you can only get one conforming lot.  That's exactly right. 

THE WITNESS: Correct.  Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So then the question is:  Because certainly, you wouldn't create three nonconforming lots, but still you're asking for two nonconforming lots then out of that because they're still nonconforming. 

THE WITNESS: Correct.  They're ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So you're actually taking what you're ‑‑ you're construing is a hardship, the 200‑feet wide, and what the Vice Chairman just indicated, that is not necessarily being presently underutilized, that it certainly could have a scenario where another structure similarly built to what's existing then would not also create an underutilization.  And in this instance, but creating these two lots, you're actually over utilizing because you're now creating two hardship lots. 

THE WITNESS: Let me state it this way:  In terms of underutilization, I'm talking about that in terms of zoning.  And in terms of the zoning, 80,000 square foot, under the R‑125, could accommodate three lots.  We're not talking about the fact that are there insufficient or small structures on the property?  Where that's not the indication and that's not how the law looks at it with respect to the variances.  So in this particular situation, the applicant has a substantially oversized lot, more than three times the minimum lot size; yet by virtue of the shape of the lot, the fact that it only has 200 foot for frontage on Mountain Avenue, they're only able to obtain one lot and one house on the property.  That's a substantial underutilization in zoning terms.  So the relief here, I think ‑‑ I believe is justified on that basis and consistent with case law, but the case law says a variance may be granted in a hardship case, in this case, the lot width, to relieve the burden of ‑‑ of the underutilization.  And moreover, even with the ‑‑ with the proposed subdivision at 40,000 square foot, both of those average ‑‑ both of those lots substantially exceed the minimum lot size, substantially, and are substantially above what is contemplated in the zoning.  So on a hardship basis, I believe that substantial underutilization is a hardship and I don't believe that from the impact on ‑‑ on the zoning point of view, that there's a substantial detriment to the zone plan.  Moreover, if you look at the consistency of lots in the particular neighborhood, particularly on the same side of the street on Mountain Avenue, virtually every lot in ‑‑ in that particular area, is 100‑foot wide.  So basically to say those people can all have one house with a 100‑foot lot, but in this situation, you can't subdivide the property and have a 100‑foot lot, I believe that that's a ‑‑ a case where you're discriminating against this landowner by depriving them of a similar utilization of their property. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anything further, Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So do you think the hardship's self-created?  I mean, it's a function of a single‑family home on that property. 

THE WITNESS: It's ‑‑ it's not a self‑created hardship.  The ‑‑ the action of the subdivided property is the ‑‑ is the homeowner's or the ‑‑ the developer's right to do so. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure, within the zoning ordinance, and if something's up‑zoned, it's up‑zoned?  You have to comply with the zoning ordinance. 

THE WITNESS: Yes, but the ‑‑ but the Municipal Land Use Law allows for variances in particular situations and based on the physical conditions of this particular property.  So it's not a self‑created hardship.  It's not that, you know, in ‑‑ in past years, the owners subdivided the property into two lots and utilized them and then is coming in now for a third lot on a property which is ‑‑ which is undersized, that would be a self‑created hardship. This property was ‑‑ was subdivided and created a very long time ago and used for a single house.  Now, it's being ‑‑ the proposal is to subdivide them into two lots which is the right of the ‑‑ of the applicant to do.  And the variance may be granted under the ‑‑ is contemplated and, I believe, should be granted under the particular conditions that exist today.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And the discretion of the board, if we feel that it's ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Obviously. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. 

Chris, do you have any questions?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No, not at this time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

Brigette, do you have any questions?

1. MR. BOGART: No questions.

I just wanted to answer MR. MARTIN's question with regard to the four variances.

I do agree with ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: I got it.
2. MS. BOGART: Okay. I can see it from my report that (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have any further questions? 

1. MR. MARTIN: I think if the board professionals (inaudible) board professionals (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

Jeff, so you another question?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, I just wanted to ask Bridgette. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: What do you think we should do, the (c)(1) or the (c)(2)? 

1. MR. BOGART: From a planning perspective?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: She'll testify. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, okay.  So ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We'll get there.  Okay.

Now we have the public. Any questions from the public for the planner, just come on up, state your name, and address. 

1. MR. WALKER: My name is Bill Martin Walker, but I still live at 114 Cottage Place.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So nothing's changed over the past 20 minutes? 

1. MR. WALKER: There haven't been any underuses of my property since I spoke last.

I do have a question for the planner, and I really do appreciate the ‑‑ the ‑‑ the level of organization that you've provided, you know, to see here. I'm a little bit confused by your testimony, so I want to ask a general question first before we dig down deeply because you've mentioned both the existence of our (inaudible) and also the existence of the case law that applies to this.  So my question to you is:  In your opinion, does the planning board have actual discretion in whether or not to refuse the variance? 

THE WITNESS: They do have discretion, but they must follow both the Municipal Land Use Law and case law.  And, in my opinion, if that is followed, then the variance should be granted. 

1. MR. WALKER: Okay. Well, I don't understand your answer because I'm don't (inaudible) do you have the case law by law, although I'm not an attorney, but I do ‑‑ so getting down into our ‑‑ our master plan for the perimeter, are you familiar with the conditions under which the master plan was designed in order to advocate the denial or the provision of variances?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the master plan does not address specifically the conditions under which variances should or should not be granted, that is the purview of the Municipal Land Use Law ‑‑

1. MR. WALKER: Okay.

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ zoning ordinance.

1. MR. WALKER: Okay. Great. Now, I really appreciate, you know, the parody that you showed the, you know, the large number of comparable lots for this neighborhood.  And just from a naive point of view, I can only think of two conditions under which this could happen.  One of them is that all these lots already existed when the current master plan was put into effect or all of these lots are granted variances under the existing master plan.  Do you know which is the case in this neighborhood? 

THE WITNESS: I do not know the case, but based on the fact that the predominant lot size is ‑‑ the predominant lot width in this area is 100 foot, I believe that at the time of these subdivisions were made, that that was a conforming ‑‑ that that constituted a conforming lot width.  But I can't state that without authority.  It's based on my expertise of having worked in this field for 35 years both on the municipal side and also the developer's side. 

1. MR. WALKER: Okay. So if I understand your answer, you're saying that all of these lots ‑‑ that all of the nonconforming lot size only became nonconforming when a master plan was created to define the desired lot size and adding setbacks and all this other stuff for Ridgewood?

THE WITNESS: Let me just correct that. I can't state categorically because I've not done the research, and I don't think that that is actually relevant to this matter, but based on my knowledge of ‑‑ of zoning and master planning in the State of New Jersey, I would suspect that whoever subdivided this property did not come in and get, you know, 12 variances for, you know ‑‑ the same variances that are being applied for tonight.  The logic would tell me that these subdivisions were created when the zoning standards ‑‑ in this particular area, this may have been a completely different zone, but in this particular area, the minimum lot width was 100 foot, not 125. 

1. MR. WALKER: Okay. So, if I understand what you're saying, you're not certain or you don't know whether the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's correct. 

1. MR. WALKER:  ‑‑ master plan was written in such a way as to declare these lots nonconforming?

THE WITNESS: When you say "master plan," it's the zone ‑‑

1. MR. WALKER: The current ‑‑ the current master plan for Ridgewood.

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the master plan is a policy guide.  I think what you're referring to is a zoning ordinance which sets forth the requirement for the minimum lot width. 

1. MR. WALKER: And ‑‑

THE WITNESS: So ‑‑

1. MR. WALKER:  ‑‑ and ‑‑

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ I don't know for a fact that this ‑‑ this area was subdivided prior to the establishment of the minimum 125‑foot, you're correct.

1. MR. WALKER: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I'm just saying based on my knowledge and experience, I mean, I've worked in the field for 35 years, it would surprise me that each of the developers of this lot came to this board or ‑‑ or the zoning board and got variances for each of these particular lots. 

1. MR. WALKER: So the other questions I would ask have to do with the issue of hardship. I think one of the board members asked ‑‑ one of the questions I have about that, and, frankly, I don't understand the question or the answer. Who is the owner of the property now?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We are. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please don't call out.  It's a question for the planner. 

1. MR. WALKER: Well, maybe we can ask it more generally, is the owner of the property also the person who is requesting the variances ‑‑
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, if the board pleas, I can answer that question. Mr. Jennee is the contract purchaser, has filed this application with the consent of the owner, Mrs. Berg.
3. MR. WALKER: I mean, well, who filed the application?
4. MR. RUTHERFORD: The applicant, Robert C. Jennee Construction Co., Inc.
5. MR. WALKER: And was the applicant aware of the existing zoning law as well as ‑‑ well, just the existing zoning law when he filed the application.
6. MR. RUTHERFORD: That ‑‑ that is irrelevant under the Municipal Land Use Law because it focuses on factors related to the applicant and not the property.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's a question directed ‑‑ I mean, you can answer if you know. 

THE WITNESS: Yes, you know I would have given the same answer.  It's ‑‑ it's irrelevant.

Prior knowledge of a public fact that you're purchasing a property that it may require a variance is not grounds for the denial of such a variance.

1. MR. WALKER: Well, wait a minute the case ‑‑ what I'm hearing is the word "hardship," and I don't think of hardship applying to individual parties, either the owner, the applicant, or the neighborhood ‑‑

THE WITNESS: We're ‑‑ we're not ‑‑

1. MR. WALKER:  ‑‑ the community or in the case of the planning board, the town of Ridgewood as a whole. Can you envision any hardship result to the town of Ridgewood as a whole resulting from this lot holding two‑family homes as opposed to a one‑family home?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the hardship under the Municipal Land Use Law is the hardship related to the property, itself, not to the owner or to the applicant.  And I've indicated in this case, that the hardship which runs with the land is the fact that it's significantly oversized, but due to its shape and its configuration, only one conforming lot or one conforming house would be permitted whereas the zoning contemplates as many as three homes or three lots.  That's the substantial underutilization of the property and the hardship related to the particular conditions, consistent with the Municipal Land Use Law. 

1. MR. WALKER: Well, if I understand what you're saying then and it sounds like you answered my first question which is: You personally do not believe ‑‑ do you personally not believe that the planning board has any discretion deciding whether to grant this variance?

THE WITNESS: Well, I have ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Well, I just object to the question in terms of the "person." He's testifying as a professional.
2. MR. WALKER: But as a professional, do you ‑‑ I mean, your familiar with the zoning law and case law and you're familiar with past cases in different counties in New Jersey.

Do you believe that in actual fact the planning board does or does not have eventual discretion in deciding whether or not to...

THE WITNESS: Of course they have discretion.  The answer the yes. 

1. MR. WALKER: Do you believe a judge would overturn that in a court of law?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

1. MR. MARTIN: I don't think he can speculate ‑‑
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, that's ‑‑ that's not a proper question.
3. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ as to that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, that's not a proper question?

1. MR. MARTIN: No.
2. MR. WALKER: That's not a proper question?

Well, I'm ‑‑ I'm here as a ‑‑ as a ‑‑ as a Ridgewood resident. I'm representing myself as a landowner.  I'm representing my family.  I have children in the school system here.  I'm representing somebody who's ‑‑ 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can keep asking questions. 

1. MR. WALKER: I can keep asking (inaudible) questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. 

1. MR. MARTIN: And you're argument ‑‑ I'm sorry, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. 

1. MR. WALKER: Well, I ‑‑ if I have a question, you know. I'm going to ask it. I'm asking a question in the English language and I'm not getting it answered in a way that I can understand, which is you're saying as a professional ‑‑ I am asking as a professional planner, do you believe that ultimately the planning ‑‑ the planning board's decision, if they were to chose to deny the variance, would be overturned? 

THE WITNESS: I'm not going to answer that question.  That's ‑‑ that's for a court of law.  What ‑‑ what I am indicating ‑‑ and I also happen to be a Ridgewood resident, by the way, and what I'm indicating that, to me as a planner, when I look at this property and I evaluate the grounds for granting the variances that are applied, that I believe that both the Municipal Land Use Law and case law would essentially require the board to grant the variance on the basis of hardship as opposed to on the basis of (inaudible). 

1. MR. WALKER: Okay. So what I ‑‑ I ‑‑ I don't ‑‑ so, I have no way of knowing which way ‑‑ can I address the ‑‑ one of the board and just give my opinion?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No.  There will be public comments at another point in this hearing, so ‑‑

1. MR. WALKER: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ you can wait for that.

1. MR. MARTIN: Then you ‑‑
2. MR. WALKER: Okay. Great. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  Thank you. 

1. MR. WALKER: And you said that that's another point in the hearing today or ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, probably tonight, yeah. 

1. MR. WALKER: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else have any questions for the planner?  Okay.  No, questions to the planner?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Can I ask one quick question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I just ‑‑ is ‑‑ is there any indication of what is the intention with the property that's owned along Marlborough Road that also ‑‑ that does fall into the wetlands area? And the ‑‑ I mean, it's most of Gypsy Pond Park seems to fall into 200‑foot radius of this property.  And I've ‑‑ I've paid close attention as the village has worked, you know, on Gypsy Pond Park and ‑‑ and pay attention to the ecology going on over there. But I'm just wondering if there's any indication of what's going to go on in the back of that property ‑‑ the other property along that road? 
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, we are also ‑‑ you're talking about Lot 11, correct?
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: I believe so, yes.
4. MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. We're also the contract purchaser of Lot 11. We have no plans for the development of that property, and quite honestly, I'm not even sure it is developable because ‑‑
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: I would think it wouldn't be, right?
6. MR. RUTHERFORD:  ‑‑ and things like that, so we had no plans to do anything with that at all. We did understand that the village might have some interest in it and not that that's particularly relevant to this matter, but we would certainly be happy to talk with the village about that. We understand the Village may have some interest there.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
8. MR. RUTHERFORD: But ‑‑ but we have no plans, and, again, I don't think ‑‑ I won't speak for the engineer, but I'm not sure you can do anything there.
9. MS. McWILLIAMS: I ‑‑ I would not have thought so based on what I can see, but, I ‑‑ you know, I would want to make sure it was protected and everything possible.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And I had actually wanted to ask a question, on your ‑‑ your analysis of properties in the surrounding area, can you just show us which is the other lot on Marlborough Road, how it's depicted? 

THE WITNESS: You're talking about Lot 11? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, please. 

THE WITNESS: Well, we ‑‑ we didn't show the individual lot lines in ‑‑ in gypsy Pond Park.

Basically, we just showed the blocks, so Lot 11's not identified specifically on the ‑‑ on this plan.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can you identify Lot 11 in reference to this particular ‑‑ because you offer this as ‑‑ it's your sheet. 

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And I don't see Lot 11.  I see Gypsy Pond Park ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Correct. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ identified as 2515, and I'm confused by that. 

THE WITNESS: Yeah, we ‑‑ we ‑‑ I ‑‑ I did ‑‑ because Gypsy ‑‑ because it's ‑‑ it's ‑‑ it's part of Gypsy Pond Park and it's not developable, we felt that, you know, it doesn't represent an opportunity to provide a conforming single‑family lot.  And we did not ‑‑ I did not want to prejudice the analysis by including the lots beyond Marlborough Road, so they were excluded. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But I think that it's ‑‑ I think it's kind of relevant to this discussion.  I'm glad my colleague raised the issue because I had been looking at it the whole time wondering exactly where that was.  So how do we have a depiction of that on your analysis? 

THE WITNESS: Well, if ‑‑ if ‑‑ if we were to include it, it doesn't have frontage on a public road, so I'm not quite sure how you would apply any of these zoning standards to it because there's no front yard, there's no front ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That wasn't my question. 

That wasn't my question. My question was merely:  How ‑‑ where is it depicted on this analysis because if we want to have a true analysis, would it be significant to identify that particular lot? 

THE WITNESS: Go ahead. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry. Most respectfully, Mayor, the area map on MR. SKRABLE' s plan in the upper right‑hand corner, he shows Lot 11 because he shows the three pads of the map there. We did not ‑‑ MR. PREISS didn't include Lot 11 in his analysis because it's not developable now and not developable for a single‑family so it really doesn't add anything to your analysis.  But he shows Lot 11 and it's ‑‑ you'll see, it's in Block 2515, which MR. PREISS showed on his ‑‑ his plan.  He shows Gypsy Pond Park, 2515 and you'll see the outline of Lot 11 there. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I did see that. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: If that helps.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I was asking specifically why it was eliminated from this analysis. 

THE WITNESS: And just to ‑‑ and if I can ‑‑ I don't mean to repeat myself, Mayor, but if we'd included it in the analysis, it would not ‑‑ the analysis was done to show how these particular lots, if they were subdivided, would relate to the existing character ‑‑ the developed character above the neighborhood.  And since Lot 11 on Block 2 ‑‑ 2515 is not developable, it's not a conforming lot, it does not have a single‑family home on it.  It's essentially undevelopable.  There's ‑‑ there's no access to it.  It would throw this analysis off and create a ‑‑ a prejudiced view of the extent of the nonconformity.  I can say that if it was included, that it ‑‑ it ‑‑ it would ‑‑ it probably would be conforming with regard to the minimum lot width because it's obviously wider than 200 foot and it probably would conform to the other requirements.  So it might be the third conforming lot of 13 properties which would reduce the extent of nonconformity by maybe 5 or 6 percent.

1. MR. MARTIN: Unless that was subdivided and then it might not conform, but as it presently exists, single‑family zone would be okay in terms of lot width. I think we can stipulate that.
2. MR. RUTHERFORD: The ‑‑ yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right then. 

THE WITNESS: And, just, if I might add, it doesn't change my ‑‑ my ‑‑ my conclusions or my opinion in any way. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to take a five minute break and then we'll start out with our architect.  (Whereupon, a recess was had.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to go back on the record. 

Michael, call the roll.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here. 

1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.
5. MR. RUTISHAUSER: He's recused.
6. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?
7. MR. JOEL: Here.
8. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?
9. MS. ALTANO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. MR. RUTHERFORD, we just discussed this matter and we're going to carry it to September 5, 2017, to provide the applicant with the opportunity to contact the HPC on this matter.  And so it's going to be carried September 5, 2017 without further notice by the consent of the applicant, and without prejudice to the board.  And it's with the understanding that we do have a few other matters on that night and it's going to be a tight schedule.  We're going to see if we can fit it in.  If, for some reason, one of the other applications isn't able to be heard, then that will afford time.  But if not, if it's too tight, then it might have to be carried to a further date. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: We understand. We will file with HPC immediately and I think we can make their meeting, hopefully, this month of August. And that's fine. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: We certainly add an extension of time for the board to the September meeting. So then we'll come back, we will have been to the HPC. I was anticipating more ‑‑ I mean, if I had any more testimony it would be very brief. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: We'll hear from your professionals.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: And we will also get a transcript of this evening's meeting and provide it to the board with the expectation that we're going forward on September 5th, those who are absent and perhaps they can listen and render themselves eligible.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  Sure.  Good.  Thank you. 

1. MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, for your time.

(Whereupon, this matter is continuing at a future date.)

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from August 16, 2016 and August 30, 2016 were adopted with corrections.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.                                                                 

Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary
Date approved: September 4, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of May 2, 2016. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, Mr. Torielli, MS. ALTANO, Mr. Joel, MS. PATIRE, MR. SCHEIBNER, MS. McWILLIAMS, , and MS. BARTO. Also present were: Elizabeth McManus, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Christopher Martin, Esq., and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Giordano was not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence
Received by the Board – There were none.

Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 38: Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Approval – Application was carried to May 16, 2017 without further notice and without prejudice to the Board.

Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01- Pubic Hearing continued from April 4, 2017 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.: 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. The next item is Two Forty Associates, preliminary and final major site plan, 150 174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005 Lot 38. Adoption of memorializing resolution of approval. This is to be carried to May 16th, 2017 with the consent of the applicant. 
Mr. Wells, is that correct? 
MR. WELLS:  We consent.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wells. 
All right.  We'll move on to our next item, it will be Ridgewood Dayton, preliminary and final major site plan, 150 152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905; Lots 5.01/1.01. 
This was a public hearing continued from April 4, 2017. 
And, Mr. Wells? 
MR. WELLS: Yes, if we could just have one second to set up a little bit.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure. 
MR. WELLS: That didn't help.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: It didn't sound good.
MR. WELLS: That wasn't so bad, I've done worse. My best story ever on messing up a file was leaving it on top of the car and then when you're driving away (Laughter). And then seeing papers behind you, isn't that odd? (Laughter.) For the record, my name is Thomas Wells from the law firm of Wells, Jaworski & Liebman and I'm back here in front of you on the Ridgewood Dayton project, which is at Block 3905, Lot 101 and Block 3707, Lot 5.01. In a way of reminder, we were    we began this process, the most recent process in    last June, June of 2016. And then we had our first hearing in September, on September 6th. Then we were back in front of you on September 20th. Back here on February 7th. And now we're here tonight on May 2nd. I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr. Kohut to give you an exhibit list, which you may recollect that I started keeping a while ago, and I have updated it to include four exhibits that we intend to introduce tonight and exhibits that we've introduced prior to this evening. 
I also took the liberty, as I have in the past, of numbering and listing board exhibits. It's possible the board may not want to use all those exhibits, but it seemed to me to keep us well organized. I went ahead and done that and added most recently, MS. McMANUS' report, which was received on March 30th or dated March 30th, received a few days after that. And then MR. JAHR's report dated April 19th. Both of which had been received by us, presumably by the board as well, and they are subsequent to our last hearing. So, I've giving you this exhibit list so you can see, to get us organized a little bit. As I did with the other application that was before you, which I am the counsel, I took advantage of the fact that we have ordered transcripts    Laura is back in the case, anybody noticed her sister has been doing good coverage while she was out with an injury, but through having transcripts, it was easier for us then listening to the CDs, not that it's not fun to listen to the CDs, but we went back through and wanted to present to the board kind of a little bit of a summary, not of the whole thing, we'll get to the point where I give you a little bit of closing, I can do that. But I did want to remind you, because as is always the case in these matters, especially when they have some complexity and some people who don't necessarily agree with what we're doing, matters get stipulated into the record. So I've summarized both the stipulations that I believe had been made primarily by me, in a couple of cases by witnesses through this evening, and then I have some more that I wanted to discuss this evening. So, the second exhibit is included in the package that Andy just gave you, which we're going to number if we could, A 19    I'm sorry    oh, A 18, which is stipulations previously agreed to. I'll just summarize that real quickly. (Whereupon, Stipulations Previously Agreed to by Applicant are received and marked as Exhibit A 18 for identification.) 
MR. WELLS: You will recollect that when    you may not recollect, but when we first presented this application, we actually had two variances. I've described them as de minimus. One is the variance that is still existing and is still de minimus. It had to do with the steep slope disturbance. The other one was that the back of the retaining wall facing the railroad tracks, as we originally proposed it, was unfinished, since it was block. And Mr. Brancheau who was the planner at that time called that out as a variance. The applicant simply stipulated that we'll put stucco on it. So, the trains going by will see stucco. So, that variance disappeared, but that was the very first stipulation on September 6th, that we will put stucco on that wall. Number two, there's stacked parking or tandem parking, it is sometimes referred to, and we made clear that in all cases when tandem parking spaces were used, it would be assigned to people with a single unit. Actually, there will be a little bit more testimony on that this evening, but we stipulated that on September 6th. Also that the units dedicated for affordable housing would not be clustered. You've heard some discussion from time to time about why it's not necessarily a good idea to put all the affordable units in one place and we've indicated that we certainly would be doing that. So, that was a stipulation as well. Number four, we stipulated that we would certainly meet all state noise level requirements with regard to the rooftop equipment. Number five, the applicant will meet the screening requirements for the rooftop equipment. Again, that was stipulated on September 6th. On September 20th, there had been some concern expressed, I believe by MAYOR KNUDSEN, with respect to the elevator and the client at that point indicated through me, stipulated, that we would add a third elevator to the project. So that was a stipulation that went into the record. Number seven, there was some questions about the standpipes. So, we provided that additional standpipes near the building, if required by the Ridgewood Fire Department, would be added. And that's something we'll probably work out with your engineer as we go forward, but we so stipulated. Number eight was the applicant will truck    will truck snow from the property in the event of large snowstorms. So we explain that's what would happen, because this site, like so many sites, don't really have areas in which large amounts of snow can be collected, so it has to go off site when that happens. Number nine, the applicant will provide adequate shielding for streetlights, that was in response to a concern raised by    I don't remember by who. I believe it was a concern raised be your engineer with respect to Title 39, which has to do with parking enforcement. And we stipulated we would not request Title 39 enforcement. Number 11, the applicant will provide additional "do not enter" signs as recommended by the village professionals, whatever they require, we'll certainly do. Number 12, there was an issue with respect to the water main. We're not exactly clear on where that stands and we'll certainly work with your engineer and the water department, but we've agreed to, if needed, to replace the water main in front of the property. 
So, those are the things that were covered in the three hearings that we've had so far. At the very last hearing, you will recollect that we    well, maybe you'll recollect, it has been a little while, Mr. Disario was testifying as our traffic engineer. He had completed most of his testimony, but had not started on parking, which is the smaller part of his testimony as the traffic engineer. And then MR. JAHR, on behalf of the village, started to ask him some questions and it deteriorated a little bit. And at that point we called it a night. Since that time   and actually it was suggested by the board and certainly agreed by us that we would encourage Mr. Disario and MR. JAHR to meet, you know, not necessarily with us all present while they're meeting, and to talk about any concerns they had. 
MR. JAHR produced a report that I marked. Let me get it right.
MR. MARTIN: BD 6? 
MR. WELLS: Yes, exactly right, BD 6. And made specific recommendations with respect to various traffic and pedestrian improvements that he believes should be made. I'll spare the arguments as to why we don't exactly have to make them, but we would like to make them. So, as a result of MR. JAHR's report, I'm going to stipulate that the applicant will, indeed, construct a sidewalk along the frontage of their project. Number two, we'll stripe and/or restripe crosswalks in the front, on the project frontage, but that we'll also stripe and provide appropriate ADA facilities at all intersections along South Broad Street from Hudson Street to Brainard Place. Third, the applicant will, if requested, mill and pave the full width of South Broad Street along the entire frontage. In other words, just replace the whole street. Number four, the applicant will provide decorative lighting directly adjacent to its development, which is consistent with the lighting found along South Broad Street and elsewhere in the Village. And last, we agreed to cooperate with the village professionals, should they later on decide to assess the effects of pedestrian connectivity on traffic impacts after our development is completed. So those are all new stipulations that I'll put into the record this evening directly responding to the various requests that MR. JAHR made and I believe we've, quite frankly, agreed to everything that he asked for. As I said, Mr. Disario would be back this evening in just a minute. So if you have more specific questions about that, those can certainly be asked. =Last, MS. McMANUS has come on board as your planner since we began the application, obviously Mr. Brancheau began the process. She produced a new report, which was dated January    I'm sorry, March 30th. Unlike the other report that I spoke to the board on, it was not nearly as ladened with comments that    that we found difficult to deal with so late in the process. However, there were some comments made, and in most cases, here as well I'm going to refer the board and MS. McMANUS to previous testimony, which obviously she wasn't able to attend to hear, but with respect to the architectural screening for the parking, Mr. Appel did testify on that, that we believe we've appropriately screened it. And I've given the reference to where he testified, and where that can be found in the transcript. The amenity deck is shown on the architectural plans. It is not terribly clear, so we    I'm stating right here that access is obtained from the first floor where it's actually shown on the plan, but there's    that's where the access is from. Number three, the applicant had previously stipulated    and I didn't list it in my previous list because it comes up here, that    in response to, I think, Mr. Brancheau's comments that the trees at the front of the property would not be fruit bearing or flowering. He was concerned about that. 
The new planner, MS. McMANUS has indicated that she's concerned specifically that the yew species could be a problem with respect to poisonous berries and was concerned about the dwarfed winged euonymus, whatever that is. I'll leave it to the planner's and landscape architects as to what is that is. In any event, what we're simply going to do is stipulate that we'll be happy to work with the village professionals with respect to the actual species that is chosen. We're all looking for things that are attractive and certainly safe for residents of the project and anybody whom may come by. There was a dormer suggestion with respect to the architecture. Here too there was specific testimony by Mr. Appel on September 6th, during his extensive testimony, which I'm referring the board to. And then last, it was testimony with respect to the noise mitigation by Mr. Appel on September 6th, and I did indicate here, MR. LOVENTHAL is going to be my very last witness, and if there is further questions about noise mitigation, perhaps he can answer them. So what do we intend to do this evening? We're going to bring Mr. Disario back up. He is basically done with his testimony with respect to traffic in terms of his direct. It is possible, obviously, that the board or others could have questions and that he be available for that. As I said, we've responded to MR. JAHR's comments since that time. I will specifically ask him to discuss the issue of parking, because he had not done that, we bifurcated that. So we'll finish that. He'll be open for your questions and that would hopefully conclude our expert witnesses. During the course of this hearing, and prior to this hearing during the Master Plan process, board members have had a chance to meet or at least see in the audience some 50 times Mr. Scott Loventhal who is the principal with Garden Homes that's responsible for this project, and because he is particularly knowledgeable and hands on about this project, I'm going to bring him as a witness as well. Not as an expert witness, although he is an attorney and a long term developer and certainly has expertise, but to simply answer any operational questions that you have. And you will note, although I didn't bring him back up now, because he has the list, during the course of the other hearings we've had on this, the other three nights, from time to time I would say MR. LOVENTHAL could probably answer that better. So he is going to attempt wherever I had said that before to answer it better. But his testimony will be fairly brief, basically to cover any open items that are here. And he is available, as are our other witnesses, for any questions that you might have. And that will conclude, what we intend to do, in terms of expert testimony. And then MR. LOVENTHAL will be prepared to answer any questions and close our case. So that said, in the way of introduction, any questions of me? Oh, I have one other thing I wanted to mention. I shouldn't    I'll give some credit to your attorney, with my last exhibit, there's a two page legal opinion from me basically speaking to the board about what I believe is the appropriate legal review standard in this matter and, in fact, any matter before the Planning Board for    and in particular something where the zoning is within the code and the site plan is basically conforming. But rather than wax eloquent again or put more lawyer time into it, the memorandum that MR. MARTIN and his office prepared that was submitted in the earlier application was    it was a very extensive and very well written primer on this very subject. As I say in my cover letter, although it was    it is specifically related or titled as to do with the Chestnut Village that's virtually the only place where Chestnut Village is mentioned, and it virtually is a primer that I recommend to this board. Therefore, I have attached it to my letter and I would like to enter it into this record as my last exhibit, which is, I believe, A 21, which would form our basic thoughts to you in terms of a legal standard of review. And I'll speak more on that when I do summation, but I wanted you to have that material in front of you. (Whereupon, Letter dated May 2, 2017 from Thomas M. Wells, Esq. Re: Legal Review Standard is received and marked as Exhibit A 21 for identification.)
MR. WELLS: Any questions? 
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Wells, thank you for that last exhibit. I just    I'll probably get a little bit more specific on certain instances with regard to this application, but thank you.
MR. WELLS: No, and I    and I understand that you may well do that as well, but it was so stellar, I may be using it outside of the Village of Ridgewood. I decided I'm not going to rewrite it. It's already written well for the board, so... 
MR. MARTIN: No copyright on it.
MR. WELLS: As you know us attorneys, we don't get really to copyright things.  I've even read briefs where I thought, "boy, that sounds good", and I wrote that.  It comes back. Okay. Should I call Mr. Disario? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Did anyone have any questions? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, I do. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  As to page 1 of the stipulations, Chris, you published a memo on September 6th, 2016, review and submitted materials and one of the comments you made was the age of the sanitary sewer collection system and examining the flow volumes and peak times and particularly under wet weather conditions. As a stipulation, I mean, if that needs to be upgraded, is that something that we should have as a stipulation, that it's evaluated and if need be upgraded, that the developer will    would pay for that? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: I'm not going to get into what the developer's contribution would be, but I would recommend that a condition of approval be that an examination be made of receiving sanitary sewer line to confirm that there is adequate capacity for the anticipated flow from this project. And that would be from South Broad, I think this sewer line runs down towards East Ridgewood and heads east on East Ridgewood Avenue. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you could do that at the site; is that correct? I mean, as far as the flow, looking in this? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: It would something I would have to do with the applicant's engineers.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  They may, as with another application that the board has heard, do some readings and analysis of the current flow in the line to determine what that is, and then we would look at what their anticipated calculated flow is to make sure everything would fit adequately.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, and then you also mentioned under wet weather conditions, I'm assuming that's kind of    probably be kind of an extreme condition whereas   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Wet weather conditions would be more of a worst case scenario.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Particularly for our system, because it is relatively porous. Our flow volumes do increase significantly during significant rain events. So we still    and we still have to, in fairness to the applicant, make sure that their waste products do get conveyed to our treatment plant. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.  So, can we add that as a stipulation that that would   
MR. WELLS: Yes, first I'll comment, I have never appeared in any town where the rain didn't infiltrate the system. So that wet weather conditions, we certainly understand. And, yes, we'll stipulate to work with the engineer on that.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anything else, Jeff?  Is that it?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  That's it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Does anyone else have any questions before   
MS. PATIRE:  Actually, it's funny because Jeff I was going to ask the same question I asked Melanie, is it something, if everyone got in the shower at the same time, do we have capacity to bring water to that site?  I know he's talking about waste, but I actually asked Melanie, if we ever talked about anything before   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Well   
MS. PATIRE:     if you're going to shower at the same time, we take    we take the water   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Are you interested in potable supply or   
MS. PATIRE:  Yes, yes.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  As far as I understand, from what Ridgewood Water has provided, I think they have provided, Mr. Wells can confirm, a Will Serve letter.
MR. WELLS:  They did.
MS. PATIRE:  They did?  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  They did. So that's   
MR. WELLS:  They did. That's part of the record, A 20, of your exhibits.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  That means Ridgewood Water is comfortable in providing the water means   
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:    for what is proposed.  
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  From the wastewater end, designers have what is known as peak factors, that would be used to anticipate the flow. And that is what I would do with the applicant's engineers to confirm the conveyance needs had the capacity to bring waste to our plant. Our treatment plant, as I believe I mentioned in my memo, has adequate capacity for any increase proposed by this developer. 
MS. PATIRE:  All right.  Thank you. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  You're welcome. 
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Wells, the stipulation sheet's going to get updated where would you like    where would you like to add that last one that Mr. Voigt and Chris just went over?  I just want to put it down, so...
MR. WELLS:  Oh, yes, I would suggest that that's just   
MR. MARTIN:  Previously agreed to? 
MR. WELLS:  Well, that would be a new one.  You can add it onto the sheet, if you'd like, on the first of the sheets, where stipulations previously agreed by the applicant, you can certainly make it 13 on that, but it's really going to be reflected in this evening's, you know, so anything that happens tonight is sort of new, but, you know, that's fine.
MR. MARTIN:  Right.  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  Ultimately, preparing the stipulations, as I did, is really for    to help the board remember what I've promised, because so much time has gone by, but, also, quite frankly, to assist your office, when you    because they ultimately have to find their way into the approval resolution and that's sort of the governing document, not what we present here.  So it's really to assist more than    and, rarely, do you go back to the actual record in the course of the resolution.
MR. MARTIN:  You saw where I was going? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I just do have one more question. I'm sorry. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. Mr. Wells, you talked about    I just want to make sure I understand what this means, milling and paving the full width of Board Street along the entire frontages, now help me to understand what that means for the entire    I mean, is it the whole   
MR. WELLS:  Yes, basically   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:     length of the property or... 
MR. WELLS:  The length of the property, completely replace the street. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Right.
MR. WELLS:  Milling and paving, I    Mr.    your engineer can tell you better, but essentially you're grinding up and you're putting new, you know, Chris, help me. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes.  Generally they're milled to resurface with 2 inches of fresh top mix.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  For example, we just did that on Heights Road from West Glen north, three, four blocks.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, so, Chris, just so    just to add onto that, I mean, it's going to    we're going to have this nice section of road and then on the other sides, I'm assuming, it's    is that going to be redone as well? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  It is    it would be our intention. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Our intention may be working, if this is approved and this goes forward as just presented, we would like to work with the applicant that once they're done, that any village program on South Broad Street, they would probably pay their portion of the work in front of their site, as Mr. Wells just agreed, and it would be done by the village's contractor. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  That may be easier for all parties.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, and then they're obviously, however    probably be done at the same time, so that's not going to   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yeah.  I mean, it would    just milling out that short section would be a cumbersome task. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  It's a lot easier to do it if you resurface the entire South Broad from East Ridgewood Avenue down to    passed Brainard, certainly. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  Which  
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  The whole section.
MR. WELLS:  Which everybody would be pleased with, so that we'll certainly work to see if that could be accomplished.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  The machines would be there and everything would already be set up by the developer that just can go ahead. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yeah.  Or, again, our paving contractor would be set up and whatever tonnage in there, if it was expended, in agreement with them, they would reimburse us for.
MR. WELLS:  It is more typically it would be the village's contractor we would reimburse that cost, that would be the more typical way, than the other way around. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes. I mean, the Village has put in South Broad Street for a New Jersey Department of Transportation Municipal Aid Grant for 2016. 
Unfortunately 2016 was the year that the state had no money, so that grant got denied.  We may reapply, and then that would help offset the Village's costs for the work along South Broad.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you. 
No further questions? 
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right, Mr. Wells.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  I'll re call Mr. Disario.
D A N   D I S A R I O, having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows: 
MR. MARTIN:  Good evening, Mr. Disario.  You remain sworn and qualified. Okay? 
MR. DISARIO:  Yes.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Mr. Disario, I told the board that what was left of your testimony was to discuss the parking.  So if you would, tell us about the parking, what's proposed? 
A. Certainly. 
As the board is aware, a total supply of 187 parking spaces are proposed, that exceeds the requirement of 183 parking spaces as set forth by the Residential Site Improvement Standards. So, we exceed the requirement by four parking spaces. That parking supply consists of what I'll call standard spaces, as well as the term that you heard Mr. Wells refer to, tandem parking spaces.
So, a tandem parking space, you can liken it to a single family home, where you have a garage space and then you have a driveway in front of the garage space that could accommodate another vehicle. So, those two vehicles, one in the garage and one in the driveway, would be tandem to each other. Now, the question that always inevitably arises as to how you manage the use of the tandem parking spaces, because obviously if somebody is parked in the first space of a tandem parking space, and you have another vehicle in the second space of the tandem parking space, how does the first vehicle get out? It's simple. Those tandem spaces will be assigned to a specific unit within the building. So each tandem space or stall, so there's two parking spaces, will be assigned to a single unit. I refer you to    and I'm not sure in terms of the exhibit number, Tom. So, I have my report, which was revised January 26th of this year as Exhibit A 14.
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. So, referring to Exhibit A 14 in Table 5, there's a parking assignment summary.  Just to take you through how the parking, as proposed, will be managed. It's rather simple. For 79 units will be assigned one parking space for a total of 79 parking spaces; 19 units will be assigned two spaces, which are the tandem spaces. So, 19 units will have a total of 38 parking spaces assigned to them, all of them tandem. That leaves a balance of 75 parking spaces; 22 of those remaining parking spaces may be assigned to a unit that desires to have an additional parking space beyond the one that they're already assigned. And the remaining 53 parking spaces will be unassigned. They'll be available to residents, visitors, and they also consist of the accessible parking spaces that are proposed. So, again, just in summary, 74 units will be assigned one space, 19 units will be assigned all of tandem parking spaces, which equate to 38. There will be 22 other spaces that could be assigned to another unit, if they desire to have an additional parking space. And 53 spaces will be unassigned and available to visitors, residents, as well as the accessible parking spaces. I can tell you, I've worked on a few projects where tandem parking was proposed and is part of the overall parking supply. And in my experience there's never been an issue with respect to the use of tandem parking spaces. And it really largely comes down to a management situation in terms of how management assigns and monitors the use of the parking, not only tandem, but as well as the other spaces. In my experience, there's never been an issue. I think when you hear from the applicant when he comes up here, shortly thereafter from me, he's going to echo that in terms of they have multiple projects with tandem parking, and their experience is consistent with mine. There's never been an issue with respect to the use of tandem in any of our projects. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. 
MR. WELLS:  I'm done with my questions of Mr. Disario. So I would open to the board.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Dave, do you have any questions for Mr. Disario? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I know this was    this was part of the last discussion where it kind of, as Mr. Well's said, kind of degraded. And I just need some help with understanding from your tables that you have in your August 24th, 2016 report, and I looked at the    kind of rough surface, how it kind of increased dramatically, at the conclusion of this particular development. And I need some understanding as to why those numbers deviate so dramatically from the existing conditions. And I was hoping you could kind of explain that to me. It's Table 4, and it relates to some of the North and    South Broad intersection with East Ridgewood Ave and South Broad. Would you be able to kind of go through them, just so I could understand a little bit better, because my assumption is that this data we're going    we're going to create a much worse situation than currently exists at that intersection, so...
THE WITNESS: Well, not to get too technical, but that intersection is a stop controlled intersection.  And the unsignalized intersection methodology that we use to evaluate how a stopped control intersection operates, when you get to a failing condition in    right now during    and you're referring to Table 4, which is a weekday evening peak hour    
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Uh huh.
THE WITNESS:    you get a lot of traffic coming southbound on Broad either trying to come through that intersection or making a left onto Ridgewood Ave. So, that particular approach is failing today. When you get to failure with this methodology, the delay calculation becomes, in my opinion, oversensitive to additional volume that's introduced into the intersection, such that any additional traffic, albeit very small additions of traffic, translate to a severe increase in calculated load. But to quantify this for everyone, two things, we've assumed that all of the traffic that we've estimated that this project will generate, that everyone is driving their car. When in reality, some people are going to walk to work, some people are going to walk to the train. Some people are going to walk to the downtown business district in the evening or during the day. 
So, our estimates are conservative in that I think there will be less traffic generated by this development then we've estimated for the reasons I've stated. Aside from that conservative assumption, just to quantify what we're talking about as it relates to the intersection in question, coming north on Broad, making a right turn onto Ridgewood, we're talking about one additional vehicle every 15 minutes on average. It's similar in terms of vehicles coming down Ridgewood making a left onto Broad. So, the amount of additional traffic associated with this project, in my opinion, is not significant. Yes, in terms of applying the methodology it equates to a large increase in delay, all right? But when you take a step back and look at it practically, you're not going to be able to receive a noticeable change in operations, because the amount of additional vehicles through that intersection attributed to this project is not that high.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So why did you apply this methodology then if it makes it look so bad? 
THE WITNESS: Because we, as traffic engineers, are prescribed to use this methodology to evaluate traffic conditions.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So these numbers are accurate?
THE WITNESS:  When you get to a failure condition, like we have for the southbound approach, I'm respectfully submitting to you that I think the delay associated with the methodology over estimates the delay. And it's supersensitive to increase in traffic volumes. You could increase it by one vehicle and you're going to see a dramatic increase in delay as calculated by the methodology.  So it's flawed.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  MAYOR KNUDSEN? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Did you say it's wrong?
THE WITNESS:  Flawed.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh.
THE WITNESS:  Flawed.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have a question on the tandem parking. Pardon me. I just want to get the right location. What is the widths of the aisles in the parking lot? 
THE WITNESS:  They're all 24 feet.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then how many of the tandem spaces are within, let's say, proximity to an entrance or exit? 
THE WITNESS: The entrance and exits that are proposed along Broad Street? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Within the parking area? 
THE WITNESS: So, Mayor, I'm a little confused by your question, but let me just take you through the site plan. So we're referring to Exhibit A 11. We have a driveway on the northerly end of the site proposed to Broad, that would be an in only driveway (indicating). On the southerly end of the site we have another driveway that's proposed to Broad that would be exit only. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I'm talking about the exit to the parking area, how many    and maybe I misspoke.
THE WITNESS: Well, we have a perimeter circulation aisle, which is one way and that circulation aisle connects from the enter driveway on Broad to the exit driveway on Broad, one way circulation in a counterclockwise pattern. Along that circulation aisle that runs along the perimeter of the site, there is intersecting circulation aisles that take you into the majority of the parking that's proposed underneath the building. In terms of tandem parking nearby, I guess these interior intersections, is the question you're asking?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, I'm interested in knowing how many of the tandem spaces are actually within that proximity of the exiting or entering the parking area. 
THE WITNESS:  My quick count is about eight.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So, just in terms of tandem parking management, and you said kind of like a single family house, the driveway is what you're expressing, but the difference in that scenario is that you don't have other vehicles insinuated into the area coming in and out of that. So doesn't that impact negatively to the proposed traffic exiting and entering? 
THE WITNESS: One    I'll give you two    a two part answer to that. I live in a single family house.  It's my wife, me, my daughter and my son. Both of them have licenses now. It's no different than us parking    let me back up. My wife's Italian. We have a two car garage. It only takes one car, because we have to have the fridge and the freezer outside taking up my spot where I would normally park my car in. So having said that, my wife gets the garage spot, my daughter and my son park on the driveway behind the garage spots, and dad parks on the street, because I'm usually the last one to come home, because of hearings like this every night, which is    so when my wife wants to leave to go to her teaching position in the morning and my daughter, who doesn't need to leave until later is parked behind her, my daughter has to get in her car and pull out into the street where there's traffic along the street going up and down, just like if you had    just like if you had tandem spots, where this grey is, that's a circulation aisle coming in. It's no different than traffic that would be circulating up and down this aisle (indicating) with tandem spaces here and somebody pulls out into that aisle. It's directly analogous to my situation in my house, but we're pulling out to a public street as opposed to an interior circulation, parking circulation aisle. The second part, to answer your question is, what you've asked is no different than the spots that are not tandem along these aisles (indicating). The spots that are just single spots, it's the same situation, somebody pulling out from a single spot is confronted with the exact same amount of traffic, if you will, if there's anyone circulating in the two way aisle pulling out from a single spot. So I think when you start to look at this in context, it's a 93 unit residential building. You're not going to see a lot of circulation occurring along those aisles at any particular time. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you. I'm good.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: Just a quick follow up question on that: Is the 24 feet there, is that two way traffic? 
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's standard. Standard parking design practice, 9 by 18 stalls, so 9 foot wide by 18 foot deep, that's what we're proposing, served by 24 foot wide aisles for a two way circulation. That's standard parking design. 
MR. WELLS: I was going to ask you to emphasize circulation, but I think you've really done it completely. The only question that I don't    the board may not understand, you talked about the fact that it would be one way around the building, two way individual aisles, but one way around the building.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. WELLS: How wide would the access drive be around the building?
MR. MARTIN: That was my next question.
THE WITNESS: I was going to shoot from the hip and say 30 feet, because typically that's what it is, but in this instance it's 31 feet. So there's a 31 foot wide circulation aisle around the perimeter of the site. 
MR. WELLS: So, my follow up question on that, the board members may be curious or maybe not, but if per chance someone was stopped or disabled or whatever, for whatever reason, along that way, even though it's not two way traffic, the one way traffic would never be impeded by virtue of that? 
THE WITNESS:  No. And, typically, one way circulation aisles in terms of ordinance standards, range in widths from 12 to 15 feet. So, effectively, we're proposing a one way circulation aisle around the site that's twice as wide as typically required.
MR. WELLS:  That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Frances, do you have any questions? 
MS. BARTO: I don't have any questions, no.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  How wide is the street currently right there in front, Broad Street, right in there? 
MR. WELLS:  Chris, do you know? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Probably around 28, 30 feet.
MR. WELLS:  I was going to say about 30 feet. We may not know that or he's going to measure it. 
THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's got some on street parking on it and two way flow.  It's going to be on the order of 30, probably a little wider.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And if    do you know if it's considered an arterial street or    Chris may be better to answer this, but if I read it correctly, and I might have a couple of numbers off, but I believe it's looked to widen on the development's place there, 50 feet or 60 feet or 30, 40 and then including the right of way. 
THE WITNESS: I'll defer to your engineer. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: That could be a problem on South Broad Street, widening just in front of the development, because the street is relatively consistent from East Ridgewood Avenue southward. If we were to make a wider section in front of this development, it could lead people to think that was, like, additional on street parking. And I don't believe we are intending it to have on street parking in front of this applicant.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.  Is there no parking in front of there?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  I believe there's no parking in front.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No parking?  Okay. And sidewalks, I think, are required, once the development is put in, to be replaced on both sides of the street? I don't actually know right off the top of my head about sidewalks. I think they're on the other side currently. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  There are sidewalks on both sides of the street and I think that MR. JAHR had a pedestrian circulation plan with those recommendations. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I saw it.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  And I believe Mr. Wells had stipulated that they would agree to that.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay. 
MR. WELLS:  No, we're replacing the sidewalk on our side of the street. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  On their side.
MR. WELLS:  The other side is fine as far as I can tell. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I mean, I just    I'm just double checking a few different facts, but    so if widening that street there to accommodate for a development of that size isn't really an option, I'm not    I    you know, I guess I'm just struggling with that for a moment, but that's okay. 
THE WITNESS:  Well, let me just touch on it for a second. In my opinion, there is really no reason to widen Broad Street. When you get wider roadways, people drive faster. So I believe to be in keeping with the context of the character of the area and the volumes that are going to be generated by this development at the driveways, there's more than sufficient width that exists today for those driveways to operate safely and efficiently. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Yeah, I'm definitely aware of all of that and concerned with the safety of the entire development. I'm trying to additionally, you know, look ahead and    to all the other development being put in the area, you know, we're adding more congestion. So I mean if the idea is to minimize congestion by keeping the roadway wider, I understand. I certainly wouldn't    I think everybody knows I wouldn't want anything to be less safe. 
MR. WELLS:  Can I suggest something? This follows on what Chris said a few minutes ago. The problem we have is if you think about the street starting at East Ridgewood Avenue and running all the way out, it would be very difficult to widen the entire street and unless you were widening the entire street, it would actually make it less safe to widen it for one small section and then go back to thin again.  So it really doesn't make any sense. In addition to the fact that we're creating only one car every 15 minutes. So it's not    we're not substantially increasing what's there.
THE WITNESS:  And why    I could tell you there's a lot    I'm not going to make any comparisons to the village, because I know you're unique onto yourself, so I won't do that. But I can tell you there's other municipalities with very wide streets that are implementing what's called a "road diet," they're starting to narrow the streets down, because they find it's better for pedestrians. So, your widened streets, have longer crosswalks, they require people to be in the travel way longer as we're making crossings. So, really the trend, especially in areas such as what we're talking about, the trend is for narrower streets and really to return the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists, as opposed to vehicles. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Definitely, I've heard of that and very familiar with it. My last question, I think maybe the Mayor covered it already, the tandem parking. You don't foresee    you know, I have concerns, I guess, about anybody needing to back out or move the    you know, do the car swap when you have somebody coming and they have to wait. If somebody pulls up, you know, say somebody comes up behind them as they're getting ready to do the car switch, do you have    do you then have to have enough space and room for people to back in, back all the way out so somebody else can back out, pull out? It's two way right where the tandem    tandem parking is.  So if somebody would only maybe have to do one lap around.
THE WITNESS:  All the parking is served by two way aisles. And we're not talking about a large parking lot. So if you get into your vehicle and you're not a tandem user, let's say, and you start to make your way out towards the one way circulation aisle, you're going to be able to see all the way to the one way circulation aisle. So if you see someone pulling out and they're in a tandem spot, you're probably going to get used to stopping far    far enough back to let them pull out and do the car swap. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Debbie? 
MS. PATIRE: Yeah. Just a few things. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the wider streets means faster cars. I guess my question to you is: Based on where the cars would be exiting the building and making a right hand    I'm sorry    making a left hand turn, there is on street parking in front of New York Sports Club, in front of the church and stuff there, so if your average parking spot, I think you said was 9 feet wide; is that right  
THE WITNESS:  Not when it's parallel.  So on street parking, parallel parking is   
MS. PATIRE:  No.  In    in your parking   
THE WITNESS:     is less.
MS. PATIRE:    garage it's 9 feet wide, is a parking spot? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:  So, the street is about 30 feet wide. Right? So three cars on that street, you got two way traffic and parking, let's just call it 27 feet and if the street is 30 feet wide, do you feel that it's safe for two cars going this way with on street parking (indicating)? 
THE WITNESS:  Absolutely.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.  So, you have never had anyone block your car or    that's a narrow    it's just that it is a narrow street in that vicinity with the on street parking there.
MR. WELLS:  Maybe you can help by simply saying how wide is a parallel parking space typically?
THE WITNESS:  Typically a parallel parking space is anywhere from 6  to 8 feet wide.   
MS. PATIRE:  The average car   
THE WITNESS:  Well, it; s not   
MS. PATIRE:    what's the average car?  So an average car     
THE WITNESS:  Six feet.
MR. WELLS:  Six feet.
MS. PATIRE:  Six feet wide? Okay. So they're parked and the curb is 7 feet? So    okay, so my question to you is   
THE WITNESS:  But just remember, and I think we lose sight of this sometimes, this is not a greenfield site. There were businesses prior in use on this site.  
And right now the site's being used for commuter parking, where you have cars coming in and out all day. So it's an active site with respect to turning maneuvers in and out of it and to our knowledge there's been no issue with respect to people turning around  
MS. PATIRE:  I'm looking at the proposed ingress and egress, so that's what I'm looking at right now, what you're proposing, and what you're proposing so it's not about    I'm not comparing what it's being used today, what the cars are or their    or their habits or routine. I'm just looking at where you have your ingress and egress and does it make sense for the proposed building.  So I'm just looking at that, how people "live" on that street, when they park in the morning and go to the gym, dropping their kids off at church, what they're doing in that area.  So that was my question. Do you feel that that's safe with the size road to have parking and two way traffic. 
THE WITNESS: Without question, yes. 
MS. PATIRE:  Okay. That was my question. 
Thank you.
MR. WELLS: You're welcome.
MS. ALTANO: Just one quick question: Regarding your methodology coming up with the right amount of parking spaces, and I'm sure, you know, it works, because you do it many times, but have you ever gone back to a project already completed and actually seen if this works? If actually what you've done and what you have incorporated in your study worked out either better or worse? 
THE WITNESS: Are you taking about specifically the tandem parking and how it operates or the overall parking supply? 
MS. ALTANO: Well, basically the whole parking supply, you know, relative to the site and how you come    the methodology you were talking about before.
THE WITNESS: So what the requirement is, is set forth by state statutes. And we're bound by that as well as the board in terms of a parking requirement. So we have no control over that. 
What I can tell you, though, is our parking supply equates to about two spaces per unit. It's 93 units are proposed, we have 187 parking spaces proposed. I can tell you I've done parking studies at other developments, rental residential developments. The actual peak parking demands that we have found at other developments are lower than the parking supply that's proposed. 
So I anticipate that you're not going to see a parking    peak parking demand approach the number of parking spaces that are proposed, but, again, we're bound by state statute to provide that number of parking spaces and that's what the applicant has proposed for that reason.
MS. ALTANO:  It's also you're confident that    that shouldn't be any problem? 
THE WITNESS:  With all due respect, I am extremely confident that the proposed parking supply is going to be more than adequate to accommodate the demands that this proposed project will generate.
MS. ALTANO:  Okay.  And the other thing is that a funny segue to your refrigerator story, I'm Italian and I don't have a refrigerator in my garage.  So get your spot back.
THE WITNESS:  We have a fridge and a freezer.  
MR. WELLS:  Do you have a second kitchen?
THE WITNESS:  We don't have a second kitchen. 
MR. MARTIN:  The Irish only have one refrigerator and freezer. 
MR. WELLS:  One for beer and one for the food? 
MR. MARTIN:  Yeah, how'd you know?
MS. ALTANO:  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel, any other questions?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'm not going to discuss the freezer in my house.
No questions. 
MR. WELLS:  Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: I don't have any questions either, so I guess   
MR. SCHEIBNER: Rich, I have one follow up question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, sure.
MR. SCHEIBNER: One of the areas in which your analogy doesn't work with the tandem parking is the fact that so many of these tandem places are so close to the wall that you can only back out in one direction.
THE WITNESS: Right. And they're at the end of the aisles. So you're not going to have anybody that's coming up towards you, because you're at the end at the aisle  
MR. SCHEIBNER:  But the car that is backing out is in the way of the cars going to follow  
THE WITNESS: Right. They would have to  
MR. SCHEIBNER:  They're going to have to back out all the way out to another aisle in order to allow the first car to even get out.  They're both going to have to back up that distance.
THE WITNESS: You're correct. The first car will have to back out and leave. They might have to go out to another parking aisle and then come back in or they're    what's likely going to happen, I'll tell you what the likely scenario is, there's going to be empty parking spaces in the row or the aisle that they're going to do this maneuver in. So one of the    the vehicle that's in the back of the tandem will pull into one of the empty spaces, the one that's in the front of the tandem will pull out and leave, and the first one will pull back in and probably park in the first tandem spot or they might just go to an unassigned parking space to allow the first vehicle to leave and then just leave it in the unassigned parking space until they're ready to go. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I foresee a lot of driving in the    in these lanes in reverse, which I think really does present a little bit of a safety issue. 
THE WITNESS: I think all of the parking spaces you're going to have to reverse in order to leave, which is not uncommon to any type of shopping center that you may shop at. When you have 90 degree parking and two way circulation aisles, you have to drive in reverse to leave a spot.  So this is not an atypical situation.
MR. SCHEIBNER: It's more than reverse to leave the spot. You would have to reverse and go down an aisle in reverse in order to get to a place where you can go forward. 
THE WITNESS: If you're at the end of any of these circulation aisles, that last spot can pull out and then pull forward up the aisle towards the one way circulation perimeter aisle and then park in an available space. You're not going to be backing up out of any of these spaces all the way out to the perimeter circulation aisle. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: I disagree. You're going to have to back out all the way out to one of the    one of the other aisles. 
THE WITNESS: We're going to respectfully disagree then. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Let me ask you another question.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: On Dave's point. Is it fair to rely on the other empty spaces that may or may not exist?  Is it fair, I mean, as this planning board, as it relates to us, is it fair for us to assume that those spaces necessarily will be empty and available for somebody to do that? I mean it may be the best case scenario, but what if in the worst case scenario someone had a party, someone had visitors, somebody else had their cleaning people, someone else had a service person painting apartments, I don't know, whatever people do, but they might have guests. So, is it fair, just in terms of circulation, safety, and, again, to Dave's point, having to back out, should we assume that there will always be a parking space or a way for somebody to avoid backing up that distance. 
THE WITNESS:  Well, I think there's a flawed assumption. My opinion is that someone is not going to back out of one of the spaces that are at the end of the circulation aisles and then back out in reverse all the way to the perimeter circulation aisle. So, we can respectfully disagree on that point. I'm offering you my opinion as an expert traffic engineer. That's not going to happen. Similarly, I don't think the board has to rely on, oh, if there's an available parking space in the aisle where somebody needs to back out because of a tandem space, no, I don't think you should rely on that. So I think you're charged with looking at things practically. You're going to hear from the applicant where he has this type of tandem parking in multiple projects that's operated without an issue. I can tell you I've worked on two projects where this identical design is implemented in operation and I could tell you it is operated without issue. If you want to talk worst case scenario, and I think it would be very unlikely to happen, but worst case scenario, somebody can pull out, leave the site and come back in and then park where they need to park if they need to let somebody out. But that would assume that there's no available parking spaces in the aisle that they're coming from or anywhere else on the site. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So now, I mean, we're actually kind of speculating here, but I guess that if two people had to do that, that would then add to your traffic generation, your trips   
THE WITNESS:  It would   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:     and then that would change that number.
THE WITNESS:  In terms of the driveway movements, absolutely. 
I can tell you that the analysis shows the driveway is going to operate with very high excess capacity. So in the unlikely event you get a couple of people going out and coming back in, there will be absolutely no issue with respect to the driveway operations or operations along Broad.
MS. PATIRE: Mr. Disario, could I ask a question? 
THE WITNESS:  Sure.
MS. PATIRE: On something you said earlier that raised a point and made me think. 
So my husband, I love him dearly, I am Italian, he is not. And he is    he's a little lazy, but I love him. So let's just pretend that him and I have a tandem spot and we're in one of these wonderful apartments. And he knows he has to leave for a meeting early in the morning and he gets home before I do from work, because I'm here at a board meeting like you. He would park in the second tandem spot and force me, his lovely wife, to go and drive around and use a different spot that isn't occupied at that time. So maybe it's more towards the applicant, but what would you do to ensure that my husband and I, who have these two tandem spots, aren't taking up other spots from folks that live in the building, right, based on your calculations about 187 spots, I know that there's only four quote, unquote, above the quota for the spots, what would you do to ensure that we are both parking in the spots and    that we're assigned to? I guess    and it more may be an operations thing, but he would absolutely do that, not even a question. So I guess    and you had brought something up and I started thinking, because it would be one of those things, he would park in the back spot so I couldn't    so he didn't have to move the car in the morning because he would have to leave early. And so, technically, we'd be taking up three spots when we're assigned two in the building. And that's a real situation.
MR. WELLS: The number of unassigned spaces? 
THE WITNESS: Right. At all times there will be a minimum of 53 unassigned spaces and that number could actually be 75 unassigned spaces. 
MS. PATIRE: Or it could be 30, if people have extra cars that come    that move in, if you have additional drivers that need extra spots in the garage. Am I right, that they could be assigned?  I'm just asking. 
THE WITNESS:  Well, let's go through the numbers again, so it's clear:  74 units will have one space assigned to them; 19 units will have the tandem   
MS. PATIRE:  Yup.
THE WITNESS:    spot assigned to them. That leaves 75 additional parking spaces; 22 of which the applicant has indicated they would assign to a unit if that unit didn't have a tandem space, and one in additional parking space.
MS. PATIRE: Right.
THE WITNESS: So you could have a minimum of 53 that would be unassigned at all times. And that could go up to 75 if there's no other people in the building that would like to have a second parking space, but they've only been assigned one. So at all times you have 53 unassigned parking spaces. So, there's going to be more than enough  
MS. PATIRE:  To cover my husband and his car?
THE WITNESS:     to cover your husband. And what I would tell him is, hey, you know you have a meeting and you're going to leave early, go park in an unassigned spot and let me park in the tandem spot. 
MS. PATIRE:  Right. And, look, I understand all these numbers are mapped out with facts, I get all that, but those are real life situations. And, again, I don't know how many cars there are    all the, you know, tenants would bring, but it's a    it's a real life situation.
THE WITNESS:  And just to    just to allay some of those concerns, again, we're parked at two spots per unit. 
MS. PATIRE:  Right.
THE WITNESS:  Actual peak parking demands per ITE are 1.2 per unit. 
MS. PATIRE:  Yes, and that's understood.
THE WITNESS:  So   
MS. PATIRE:  Understood.
THE WITNESS:     we have more than in excess in terms of average peak parking demands for an apartment complexes like the one that's proposed.
MS. PATIRE:  He would just take the one closer to the door so...
THE WITNESS:  Yes, he would. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Again, just a quick question, with the handicap spaces, how are they    were they assigned?  How do they    or are they not in those    that mix of unassigned spaces? 
THE WITNESS:  The 53 includes the accessible parking spaces. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So then    okay. 
THE WITNESS:  And, obviously, if one of the residents were handicapped   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Then what would be  
THE WITNESS:  Then they absolutely can be assigned. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  It would be assigned to them and you'd give up one of the other parking spaces. 
THE WITNESS:  Correct. 
MS. ALTANO: Yes, so    I'm sorry. So when you said the 53 spaces originally you have 53 spaces will be unassigned, basically they are unassigned but they include the ADA spaces. 
THE WITNESS:  The accessible parking spaces, correct. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  MR. JAHR, would you like to ask questions of Mr. Disario? 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR has been sworn in on this application.
John, if you'll raise your right hand?  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
MR. JAHR:  I do.
J O H N   J A H R,
155 Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: Okay. And just for the record, state your name and business address.
THE WITNESS:  John Jahr, Petry Traffic, 155 Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Wells, do you stipulate to MR. JAHR as a traffic engineering expert? 
MR. WELLS: We actually did previously in the last record, and, yes, I'll do it again.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 
Thank you, MR. JAHR.
MR. JAHR: Thank you. Just for recordkeeping purposes, there was a traffic study submitted by the applicant and reviews done by our office starting with August 24th, 2016; an additional evaluation, January 26, 2017; and reports of my office, January 26, 2017 and April 19, 2017. 
The applicant has responded to my concerns with regard to the traffic study and they have answered all of the questions to my satisfaction regarding the traffic and parking impacts for this project. I had no further question regarding the traffic studies or the traffic impacts. All of my questions and concerns have been addressed by them either in writing or by the various hearings. 
With regard to the parking, there isn't too much else I could say about tandem parking. I think that you guys have adequately vetted your concern with it. I would like to ask if    I may be missing something, how are outside folks and visitors handled in the site plan? In other words, let's say that somebody is late for the train one day and they    can they get in your place and park there? Is there going to restricted parking? How is that going to work? 
THE WITNESS:  No outsiders are going to be able to park on this site, unless they're a visitor or a resident. And that's purely    again, it goes back to management. And you'll hear from the applicant a little later after me what the management plan is. But it's not    this is not an atypical project for them. They have probably hundreds of these types of projects throughout the country. 
MR. JAHR: Okay. I would like to say that I agree strongly with the applicant's traffic engineer with regard to the possibility of excess parking available on site. So I'm not quite sure how that's going to work, but is there some rule or requirement that if they do have a significant amount of excess parking, are they going to be allowed to vendor it to    you know, to sell it to others to use, if that becomes the case.  How does that work?  Is there anything that we need to worry about with that?  Maybe you can give us a little guidance from the applicant's point of view on this? 
MR. WELLS:  I can tell you that the Village does not presently have an ordinance that would necessarily allow that, but, for example, members of the Council    or the Mayor and members of the Council have had some negotiations with the YMCA that had some excess spaces, but right now there is no facilitating ordinance for that that would allow someone to lower the, you know, the amount of parking that they're required to have by leasing spaces to someone else. 
MR. JAHR:  Well, for the sake of conservatism, okay, you're providing RSIS in excess parking. If in the future you find that you really only need half of the parking that you now provide, what protections can the village have that you're not going to now sell that parking to say   
MR. WELLS:  To my point exactly, the village has a protection, we have to have the parking that's required. What I'm telling    I thought you were asking as a practical matter with    if that was a desirable result to do that, that would take some legal craftsmanship, not just on the village point, I'm not exactly sure you could do that in the face of the state law that requires the spaces with RSIS, but... 
MR. JAHR: So basically the condition of your approval is regards to parking. If you ever want to change that, then you'd have to come back to this board or  
MR. WELLS:  For sure.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  I just want to make sure  
MR. WELLS: For sure. I'm not    and honestly we're    as in a commercial use where it's not dictated by RSIS, I think it would be possible for the village to allow someone to no longer    to lease some of their spaces, because they weren't needed and to allow less spaces per the village requirement. I'm not sure they could do that with RSIS. I think   
MR. JAHR:  I think the board is more concerned that there is not going to be enough parking.  I think    I'm concerned what happens if there's too much, so it sounds to me like the village is protected to the maximum extent possible. That's all I wanted to make certain. I didn't want to overlook that. I wanted to make sure the village had the maximum possible protection if it went either way. 
THE WITNESS: And I've spoken to the applicant and the applicant stipulated that none of the parking that's proposed will ever be leased to a third party in any way, shape or form.
MR. MARTIN: Just point of reference, MR. JAHR, in another community this issue came up and I think Mr. Wells hit it on the head when he said the requirement for the amount of parking spaces doesn't change. In the other community, they had enough parking, they had extra parking that didn't count towards their requirement, that had to be approved by the Planning Board, just like you said. In this instance, what we're talking about 157    187, 183 is five spots I don't think it makes any sense, correct? 
MR. WELLS: There's also the concept, as you're very familiar, of shared parking.  So that in other words    and there are provisions with the code that allow commercial uses to essentially lower their requirement based on shared parking, but that's not    none of that applies here. 
MR. JAHR: Just trying to make sure the Ts are crossed and the Is are dotted. I'm sure you can understand my concern for the village's best interest. I think that    you know, they stipulated to everything in my    my report. I'm, you know, quite pleased with the    where the applicant stands on the traffic issues on this. I think that they've done everything they can to mitigate their    in my opinion, they've done everything they can within reason to mitigate their pedestrian and mitigate impacts to the maximum extent that I could see at this juncture. I do think that we will have to come look at this somewhere down the road if this board does choose to see this application favorably, I think we will    may want to look how it really does get parked and how many people really are walking up and down as compared to driving. 
And I think that that's something that the traffic report is definitely conservative, and I think that things may flip, you know, in actual reality later. I think we're protected on both sides. I really don't have anything else. I think they've satisfied all of my concerns. Is there any questions the board may have of me with regard to the traffic study? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're not up to that point. We're just crossing him. 
So we'll move on.
MR. JAHR: I'm done. I'm done asking questions, other than I know for a fact that when his daughter doesn't get up in the morning, he's got to move the car. 
THE WITNESS:  That's true.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Chris, do you have any questions?  
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Beth, do you have any questions? 
MS. McMANUS:  No, I don't. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next    anyone from the public have any questions for Mr. Disario? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No. Can we ask John Jahr questions? Or we didn't get to the point where we can ask John questions? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, we're not there yet.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.  Thank you. 
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Wells still has the stage.  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Understood.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Is there anyone from the public that wants to ask questions of the traffic expert? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing there are none.
Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. 
MS. PATIRE:  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  Don't leave. 
THE WITNESS:  I'm not.
MR. WELLS:  MR. JAHR may have some additional questions. 
So I would like to call Scott Loventhal. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure. 
MR. MARTIN:  Good evening, MR. LOVENTHAL. 
Raise your right hand, please.  Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, I do.
S C O T T   L O V E N T H A L,
820 Morris Turnpike, Short Hills, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: And please state your name, your business title and your business address.
MR. LOVENTHAL: Sure. Scott Loventhal, spelled L O V E N T H A L, Garden Homes Development, 820 Morris Turnpike, Short Hills, New Jersey. And I'm the managing member of Ridgewood Dayton, LLC, the applicant this evening.
MR. WELLS:  What I would like to do, with your permission, MR. LOVENTHAL and the board is, he is not an expert, so we're not going to qualify him as an expert per se, but I'm going to ask him if he would, to just give you a little bit of an introduction of what he does in the development process and his familiarity with this particular project. And then I'm simply going to allow him    because he did take notes as to the things that were raised that were concerns that he could address and I'm just going to let him answer those, bring those matters and then be available for your questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.
MR. WELLS:  So you're on.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Sure. 
So I'm the director of development for Garden Homes. Garden Homes is a privately held real estate development company with a number of disciplines, residential being our largest, both for sale and rental communities throughout the northeast and quite frankly throughout the country. I oversee most of our development activity here in northern New Jersey. Part of what I do is initially identifying sites, which I'm going to talk about in a moment, and why we identified this site and what we thought was important as we looked at this site. I initially identify sites. I work with our acquisition professionals in acquiring these sites, and ultimately take them through the entitlement process, hiring a team of professionals, including many of which have testified here for you this evening, and in past hearings, of course, from the site engineers, architects, environmental experts, geotechnical experts, planners, so on and so forth, in order to create a project that ultimately is well received within the community and provides us a return. 
And how do we get our return? We get our return, quite frankly, from providing an experience to our resident. Our resident either in the form of a renter or in a purchaser. That's a good experience. In this case, we're going to be up for our grades. We're going to get graded once a year by our residents. And if the project is not marketable and the project doesn't provide an experience to our residents that is a good one, they have other choices. We call them today renters by choice. You know, our world has changed. And it used to be a homeownership world. Now there are still plenty that would like to see homeownership, but there are plenty that would like to rent. And that's why we identified this site as a wonderful place for renters. We identified the site as a wonderful place for young renters. We think some young professionals that have grown up in this community will probably want to rent here as a steppingstone to where they may live in the future, hopefully Ridgewood. And more likely, empty nesters who have lived many years within Ridgewood and don't have    that's one of the things I'll talk about in a second in terms of identifying the site, that we think it will be well received in the community, that don't have a housing choice that we're providing for here. And we identified Ridgewood as a community that I think many, many moons ago at a master plan amendment I looked at the inventory with, at the time, the planning board and suggested to them that there hadn't been an appreciable number of new units, residential units, built in the Village of Ridgewood in almost 40 years. That's remarkable considering that Ridgewood is such a balanced community in terms of its housing stock, with the exception of what I just suggested, and also such a vibrant community, one that we think can be made more vibrant by virtue of introducing some 24 hour life in your downtown. 
So, when we had an opportunity to identify what    well, we know one of the difficulties in Ridgewood when we look back is that there weren't available assemblages of land. And, unfortunately, the recession led to car dealerships being one of the true victims of the recession.  Car dealerships that weren't located along state highways where they properly    at least in this day and age, properly more    placed more appropriately along state highways where they had an opportunity for shopping at a number of    a variety of auto dealerships. The downtown just didn't present what it may have presented in the 1940s and '50s when the Brogan Cadillac site was first put into existence. So we identified a derelict property, one that was closed and one that was available, and looked at that site being within a quarter mile of a gas station and a bus station. I think that's been lost in a lot of the testimony that's presented. We also have a very robust bus station here in Ridgewood and I think that we're within walking distance, so it provides our potential residents with more options; vehicle, pedestrian options, train and bus. And that's very unique and that was what was one of the things that was certainly very unique to this site. We also found a site where we in what we do could, without much assemblage, we just have two parcels here, could provide a project that presents the opportunity for appropriate staffing. We usually try and look for projects that are approximately 100 units in size and that allows us to staff them appropriately. This gave us something in that general range in the downtown of Ridgewood and presented what we think was a    what we know, quite frankly, was a void in your housing stock, an opportunity for those young professionals and young people within the community and more likely empty nesters. We'll also see our share of demographics throughout the spectrum, of course, within what we'll be developing. But as I said, I think it's really important that this project ultimately be well received in the community, but more important or just as important, is that it needs to be well received by the residents that are going to live there, because they're going to have the choice. So when we talk about tandem parking, when we talk about uses that    this project won't be for everybody. I think elevator buildings with interior hallways are not going to be for everyone. Do I think that I'll find 93 people, 93 residents that want to live here? Absolutely. Our studies suggest that we will.  And the project can be a success and be one that provides for a void in this housing    the housing market here. What's another goal that we have? We want to provide a safe, efficient experience for our residents. Why? So they renew. It's that simple. We really want them to renew. We also, having a large portfolio of real estate, it's very important to us that a lot of things that were talked about from a safety perspective, that those things are implemented. If they're not implemented by our own management team, we have issues related to insurance, and casualties and claims. And those are not good for our business. So we pride ourselves on doing everything correctly, not just simply minimum codes    and I'll talk about that in a minute in the context of a few items that I picked up along the way, not simply meaning the bare minimums, but providing things that are above and beyond the code in order to provide an experience for our residents that's going to have them renew their lease, and hopefully pay an increase in rent at the end of that term as well, you know, those are negotiated also. So I think those are goals that we want to talk about. Along the way I picked up on about a half of dozen items that I wanted to speak to, a few of them are very, very brief. The first and foremost that came up, I think in our first evening, was a concern about our methods for removal of sanitation and recycling. With this building being unique to Ridgewood, I understand that the process by which how you remove recycling and sanitation is very, very important. The first thing that I did as a development professional is I spoke to your professionals. And I spoke to an Ed Bethune (phonetic) and a John Spano of the DPW at the time    this goes back now sometime    and a Linda Salvi (phonetic) of your DPW and your recycling department to get Ridgewood specifics on the site plan, not the county's, Ridgewood's, right out of your code. And how does Ridgewood want to handle recycling? And how does Ridgewood want to handle trash removal? So, what we're generally doing is looking at our own operations first and then we're looking at the municipality's operations and trying to obviously blend those two so that they work correctly. In this instance, I can tell you without any concern whatsoever that we are    will be in full compliance with your recycling requirements and full requirement [sic] with your trash removal requirements. I understand that we'll be required to hire private sanitation and what    from an operations' perspective what we ultimately do, these elevator style buildings will have either a single    in this case two trash chutes, one in each wing of the building. Residents will be bringing their trash to that trash chute. They will not be leaving it in the trash room. They will be bringing that trash and the trash will enter the trash chute. It will then come down to our ground level where it will enter a compactor. It will be compacted into a very small mass and then on those trash pickup days, this    the sanitation trucks will have a very limited time of day to spend on site, because there are on staff porters who will be removing those four yard containers, they're very small, that are contained with a top, they'll be removing those to where they're meeting those sanitation trucks and they'll be offloading that sanitation. It's about a 5  or 10 minute operation. It's very clean. It doesn't leave anything. While we do provide, because your ordinance provides for a location for an outside dumpster, that's really in a rare occasion where we have some overflow, we talked about events, something that might go on in the community room, cardboard, people that are moving in, then they can't fit those things in a trash room or in a compactor. And they're going to be brought to an outside dumpster, which, of course, details in which are provided for on your    on our site plans, an outside dumpster, and then trash will also be picked up on those    on those trash days. With regard to recycling, I reviewed    I reviewed your recycling requirements. We can meet them in their entirety. Recycling will be handled through regulations with our management company. People, of course, will be policed to be recycling, just as your policed at your single family home or your town home or any other rental community within the village. And, yes, it is somewhat of an honor system that hoping that people are going to do their part in terms of recycling. But we will meet all the recycling requirements in terms of separation, and in terms of how that recycling is handled. Recycling is left generally in bins in those trash rooms, which are on each floor. So it's very convenient for our residents. And then those recycling bins throughout the day are removed to the outside dumpster location. And those recycling bins are then removed by a recycling vendor who will come through on a frequency that would be set by us based on the demands of the complex. So I wanted to get that out of the way. I know that was important. Are there any questions on sanitation or recycling? 
(No response.)
MR. LOVENTHAL: Pretty straightforward. Environmental I know was a concern, I think COUNCILMAN VOIGT raised it and several others, and I want to    since I don't profess to be an expert, and I'm not suggesting I am, but I'm going to read to you where we stand in terms of environmental remediation on site. 
There was and continues to be    there's one remaining environmental issue on the site, which I'll talk about in a moment, but there was when the Brogan company ceased their operations, they did hire a licensed site remediation professional, an LSRP and a licensed environmental firm. The LSRP is now mandated by the state and the LSRP acts in the place of the state and he is actually overseeing the work that is being performed by the environmental company who was cleaning the site. They completed a Phase I environmental site assessment. They did have a number of areas of concern, as we know AOCs, they're called, that were identified. They then completed a Phase II.  And I could only characterize many of the environmental issues that existed, and I'm using past tense, because the majority have been remediated since we've been in this process for now more than five years since they hired their licensed site remediation professional. Most of the environmental issues that existed on the site were what you would typically find in the 1940s, '50s, '60s and '70s in an automobile use. They were hydraulic fluids. They were oils. They were various things associates with the lifts that were in the garages. Of what I think initially were more than 40 AOCs, areas of concern, that were identified, we are now down to one. The only one that remains is one that is, what we call, historic fill. And historic fill is identified by the DEP as what people used to do in New Jersey and throughout the country when they would take down a structure, they'd bury it. Both what has been identified through a remarkable number of borings on this site is wood, shingles, various products that were probably attributable to the single family homes and I'm sure at some point in small commercial buildings that existed on this site many years ago. 
The historic fill, the manner in which historic fill was removed will be done so, so it's done initially in connection with the excavation of this site. It will continue to be overseen by the licensed site remediation professionals and will ultimately lead to what's called a response action outcome or what used to be known as a "No Further Action" Letter. So the one remaining AOC, if this board is so inclined to grant us an approval, will be taken care of in connection with the excavation. The grading was considered in connection with where that historic fill is located. There may be, in some instances, because it's never exact science, some areas that are over excavated, there's more debris, wood, building materials that are found in the ground. All of that material is offloaded and manifested appropriately in accordance with DEP regulations and is sent to    in many cases sometimes it's listed as classified or unclassified and sent to a variety of labs    excuse me, a variety of landfills in various places. And then that    ultimately, that historic fill issue will be resolved. So that, from an environmental perspective, I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of where we stand. There's been a long and arduous process over the last five years the Brogan company has undertaken. We have, as a contract purchaser, have our own. So there's now a third party, environmental expert who is overseeing, kind of doing a peer review of that environmental work. So there's actually three people that are reviewing where we stand. 
The interesting thing about where this site sits is that the DEP wouldn't necessarily require that historic fill to be removed and that historic fill could, if this site was not developed, continue to contribute to environmental issues in and around this property. But in connection with what we hope will be a development of this site, that last area of concern will be taken care of. Any questions on environmental?  (No response.)
MR. LOVENTHAL: Okay. Great. Tandem parking. Maybe I should have started there, since this was something that was on everyone's mind. While tandem parking is not something that is provided for in your ordinance. Your ordinance is silent as it relates to tandem parking. I can tell you having developed six recent communities where we have tandem parking in northern New Jersey, it is both safe, it is efficient. And the residents generally are most appreciative that they have the opportunity to have two spaces with some of those more coveted units. And we generally do that by virtue of the size of the unit, the rent that's obviously paid as to which units are getting two spaces. If someone didn't want two spaces that were in a tandem format, we do have the opportunity, because of the flexibility in our parking here, to potentially give one resident spaces that are next to each other because of the unassigned nature of some of those spaces or as I    my theme earlier on, this project may not be for them if they don't like a tandem space, but they like a large unit and they're just uncomfortable with the concept of pulling out of the tandem space. I can tell you that we have not had, that I'm aware of, a single incident, from a safety perspective, a single fender bender. I could tell you that, you know, it's hard for me sitting on my hands during all of these hearings to not, you know, scream out often, I think it's overstated as it relates to how much traffic is under a parking level on any given time of day, morning, noon or night. There's virtually no cars. And I've witnessed this myself, I have experience in each of our projects, there's very few cars. Yes, during that peak hour you may have some movement of vehicles, but usually within any given row there's never more than one or two cars at any given moment and residents get used to the tandem space. They want two spaces. They want to control their spaces. They're reserved, as I said, for that resident. And very, very quickly just like backing out of the driveway into often    as Dan suggested    a busy street, which they won't be doing here. They'll only be backing out into a very lightly trafficked interior access driveway. They do it once or twice and they're used to it. And ultimately    we haven't had anyone that has said to us in any of our complexes where we have tandem parking that they are uncomfortable with it and they want to move. And they want to move out of that tandem space. We haven't had, that I'm aware of, anyone that's ever made that complaint. They get used to it very, very quickly. And most of them are very appreciative they have that premium of two spaces assigned. I will also say to you something that's lost in the tandem parking and why a lot of municipalities are now actually including it in their ordinances is that it leads to less impervious surface. When you have    an impervious surface, meaning paved areas, when you have parking that's up against one another as opposed to needing another 24 foot drive aisle, you now have two spaces, one behind one another, and you're reducing impervious surface. So we're able to get more parking within a smaller footprint. So, yes, it's a technique that we're applying that you might say, well, it's a way of getting around the aisle.  From our perspective, we're saying, why do you need more paved surfaces?  We're putting more parking under a building where residents are desirable of that parking, and giving them a better experience by having covered parking that is protected. So, we haven't found it to be an issue. We find it to be safe and efficient in all of our projects and the closest one that I've spoken about in the past with this board and with the governing body is a project that we built on 208 in Fair Lawn, the Fair Lawn Promenade project. Each of our two residential buildings there, which are more luxurious apartments, contain tandem parking. And the tandem parking is very efficient in that complex as well. So if anyone is interested in looking at it, it's right here on Route 208. It's 10 minutes from the project. Elevators, I think COUNCILMAN VOIGT was concerned about elevators and the ability to accommodate    and the Mayor as well. Nevertheless, what I wanted to do is make sure that everyone understood that the local building codes do require at least one elevator to accommodate a stretcher. Stretchers are not accommodated lying flat. They're in a    they're accommodated with an angle. Those elevator cab heights are 9 foot, instead of a standard elevator, which would be less than 8 foot. They have a cab width at 7 foot 5. They have a depth that's about 6 foot and a door width that's 4 foot. That's not necessarily a standard elevator. That's an elevator that accommodates a stretcher. We use several brands, every style of elevator, whether it be Otis, Kone, ThyssenKrupp, all have a stretcher accommodating elevator. I can stipulate that all of the elevators in our building will accommodate a stretcher and that the third elevator that we spoke about will have that 9 foot height as well, if not more, so that we can accommodate moving from that third elevator. 
So from a safety perspective, we are more than confident that we not only meet the minimum code, but we're going to be doing that in each of the elevators to allow for that stretcher, if necessary. Any elevator related questions?
MS. McWILLIAMS: I have a question.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Sure. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Did you just say the elevators accommodate not    stretchers that are not laying flat?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Right. Elevators    an elevator that is deemed an elevator that accommodates a stretcher, they don't lay flat, that's correct. The way that a person that is transported    and I don't profess to be an emergency expert, but I'm just telling you what these elevators are    has a person that's in an angled position. 
So the stretcher is angled so the person's almost sitting, not completely upright, but somewhat extended probably a 45 degree angle. And that is a stretcher accommodated elevator. None of the elevators, other than maybe large, very large freight elevators that you wouldn't find in a residential setting like this, would not accommodate a flat stretcher and your emergency services would not be utilizing a flat stretcher. I'll take it a step further that I also spoke to your emergency services. I wanted to talk to them about the concerns that were raised and sprinkled throughout this about safety as it relates to an ambulance or a rig that might be going under this building. 
They made it very clear to me that under no circumstances would they ever bring an ambulance or an emergency services rig under this building. They don't need to. There is only a very short distance from either the front door or the driveway that circulates around the building, and they would not be bringing an elevator into    excuse me, they would not be bringing an ambulance under this building. So    and I can certainly refer to who we spoke to and what information they gave us as it relates to the ambulances, if you're interested. We spoke to a Tony Lillo who is your chief and director of Ridgewood Emergency Services. He indicated that while their tallest elevator is 9 foot 8, that the 8 foot 2, which is required by code is all that he would be looking for. And we have stipulated that our parking level will be at 8 foot 2 throughout. I also brought with me as, it relates to height, and it was something that we can hand out and enter as an exhibit, what that detail looks like as it relates to warning signs that go in so that our buildings are not damaged. 
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Wells, we have to make sure it's checked out. A  
MR. KOHUT:  A 22.
MR. MARTIN:  A 22. 
(Whereupon, Garage Height Photo is received and marked as Exhibit A 22 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN:  Garage height photo?
MR. KOHUT:  What do you want to call it?
MR. WELLS:  Yes, that's fine.
MR. MARTIN:  Garage height photo.
MR. KOHUT:  Garage height photo?  Fine.
MR. MARTIN:  Do we know what building this is?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I'm sorry?
MR. MARTIN:  What building? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes. This is a building that we're developing. If anyone is going south on the Garden State Parkway at the Essex tolls in Bloomfield and wants to see another project that is consistent with what we're doing, this project is called Oaks Pond. It's located on the southbound side of the Garden State Parkway in Bloomfield just at the Essex tolls. You see our last building is going up as we speak. We've got three buildings that are approximately 300 units, a clubhouse, pool and amenities. And many of the operations in those buildings are identical to the operations that we would    and consistent with the operations that we would expect here. So, what this photo is providing, just to put an orientation and put it into perspective, is as you're entering below the building we call out the 8 foot 2 clearance height. And what I would say to you is that where that yellow boom is, is not 8 foot 2. So if somebody hits that, they know that they're already too high, but the 8 foot 2 is actually up above that, so it gives us a little bit of a warning.  If somebody hits it, you hope that they're only, let's say, 7 foot 8, 7 foot 10, they hit it and then go, hey, maybe not so fast and they don't go under that building. So that's what we're providing. And it's a standard detail that we provide on all of our buildings in order to provide safety, in order to make sure that we don't have a scenario where a vehicle that's too tall for under the building goes under that building and either damages the building or compromises our sprinkler system. 
I think someone asked also along the way if there was ever a car fire or something like that under the building, how would that be taken care of and your emergency services made it very clear, they would simply be pulling a hose to that location from either our standpipe or likely from the hydrant on the street, and they would be    they would not be bringing a rig under a building. Our dry system that would exist, the sprinkler system has a wet system and a dry system. In places where we don't have temperature control, it's a dry system. So the garage level has a dry system.  Our dry system would likely be activated and would probably be putting out any minor vehicular fire, even before emergency services are there. Questions on garage height? Signage?
(No response.)
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Your planner and a number of    your planner being Beth McManus and not Blais earlier, brought up a question that I wanted to address, and I think that might be my last one, regarding insulation and how we are going to    what details are we going to implement in order to ensure that a project that is adjacent to the rail ultimately provides for that tenant experience that we're obviously looking for. So, what I wanted to indicate to the board and to Beth is while our construction documents are not complete, obviously at this stage, what we do in these scenarios we're along    in Bloomfield along the Garden State Parkway or in other instances where we're along rail, and I've built in Allendale and I    along the rail, seems to be a theme for obvious reasons that along the rail is    is a good place in northern New Jersey for residential now. 
What we're doing is we're looking from a code perspective and we're hiring not only an architect, but we hire an acoustics special    specialist, excuse me    and we have an acoustic specialist by the name of Michael Spencer who's from Pennsylvania who's widely used in the industry. And what he does is he analyzes sound both from our basic code compliant architectural plans and then he makes recommendations that will allow us to    and I want to use the term correctly    to improve upon the STC rating, sound transmission code rating. Like right now code in residential settings is a 45. What that number means, I don't know. But we will not be designing these buildings to a 45, at least along the rear. I also think it's important to note that design of this building leaves us with virtually no units that are directly oriented on the rail. In fact, as    I will just walk to the plan, if I recall from the floor plans, most of the ends of our building are where we contain our stairs, our stair towers. So there we've got two levels of 12 inch block to also help with insulation.
But even along the sides of this building, and even along our amenity a deck areas, what we will be doing both from our windows as well as our walls, our windows will have a soundproofing to them that will improve the STC probably over 50. And I am just putting that out there, 45 being standard, somewhere between 50 and 55 is a robust detail. We will also be implementing either batt insulation that is soundproofed or blown in insulation which is a technique as well as that we use in these environments, again from our perspective while I'm appreciative and respectful that the board asked the question, it is only in our best interest to provide a living environment that we recognize the train schedule here. One of the reasons why the residents will want to be here is because of that train schedule, but they want to meet the train in the morning and they want to be sleeping through the night. If they're not that's the grade that we get is a failing grade.  And they don't renew their lease, you know and I think that that's something important where we say well, "what if", "what if", "what if", "what if". As a renter by choice you have a 12 month lease.  If we ever had someone who is completely dissatisfied, there's ways of getting out of your lease sooner. But we're always about providing quiet enjoyment in our lease and ultimately providing that experience that we spoke about that's going to have them renew that lease in the future.
So these sound deadening techniques are important to us and will ultimately be implemented in this building. I am not sure that I had anything else that I came up with along the way.
MR. MARTIN:  A landscape planner.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Say that again, I'm sorry. 
MR. MARTIN:  Landscape issues?  I know you're not the designer on this.
MR. WELLS:  Well, There was extensive testimony on that by Mr. Lapatka.
MR. MARTIN:  I know there was.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, I   
MR. MARTIN:  But this is the manager, from the management.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I could certainly    I could certainly at least provide   
MR. WELLS:  As to maintenance?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Hold on.
MR. WELLS:  Maintenance concerns?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  From a maintenance perspective?
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, maintenance and maybe some of the landscape ideas. I mean   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I will tell you that   
MR. MARTIN:  Lay it out in   
MR. LOVENTHAL:    Your ordinance does not require lawn sprinklers. And I know that there are debates among environmentalists whether lawn sprinklers are good, are bad, or indifferent   
MR. MARTIN:  God bless you.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Bless you. From our perspective we will be considering the recommendations of our landscape professionals, but we don't have significant amount of turfed areas, but we do anticipate that we will be sprinklering our landscaped beds and we'll be sprinklering our turfs    turf    excuse me    because we want to keep things green. But we will be doing so in a manner that is consistent with any local ordinances or any DEP obligations. And certainly won't have an impact if you have a water demand issue in the peak months, that's the first thing that's obviously shut down is sprinklers and those either odd/even. We find that less watering is better. In terms of the planting, we are proposing, as had been discussed by Al Lapatka our civil engineer, and a lawn area along the frontage of the building, a small courtyard that exists where there will be robust planting. We didn't have on this design three amenity decks and I certainly wanted to give a little bit of understanding    a little bit of detail as to what those amenity decks include. They're part of, of course, the recreational component or the active and passive recreation obligation within the ordinance. But we provide that because this is a site that really doesn't have a significant amount of otherwise places for someone to sit outside and enjoy the weather. I will say that every one of these units, and I don't know if it came up with our architect, every one of these units does have a balcony so they're    and that, of course, was calculated in our    in our outdoor space as well. But in addition to the private, and those will be private balconies. In addition to the private balconies each of the rectangular green, and I'm pointing to our overall site plan, each of the rectangular green amenity decks are over the parking level of course, so allowing us for the large footprint under the parking level to provide protection. And those amenities decks, while they're shown in green, they are not all turf and they are not calculated as all turf in all of these calculations. They're a combination of hardscapes, seating areas, it's passive, of course, recreation because they're only between 40  and 50 feet wide, but they are separated from the units that are at grade on that level so that the resident that lives at that level would have a private balcony like any unit above him, but then there would be a screening and they'd be separated by some    usually some planting and a railing. And then the rest of the amenity deck would be accessible to all residents for use on we generally have a set number of hours for those outside amenity decks, that they're not providing for any disturbance to any of the residents late in the evening. And what I think was important that I bring up in the building, this will be a highly amenitized building. And how do we define amenities? First amenity starts with staffing. We're proposing a daytime concierge. We do not anticipate at this point that we would have a 24 hour manned desk because it just doesn't warrant it with the number of units. But we have a daytime concierge that's available for residents. We also utilize a very sophisticated    Building Link, it's called, a computerized system that allows our residents to communicate back and forth with our desk attendees. That Building Link allows them to handle both management issues, maintenance issues, emergency issues and security issues. Each unit also is equipped with a video intercom system that would allow access so during the day a guest would need to be announced, other than if a code is given out to a rear door or something like that. But a guests would be announced with our daytime concierge. And they would be buzzed up to a residence. So these are not going to be units where outside solicitation would be allowed by either, you know, people who are selling encyclopedias    are they doing that nowadays? I don't think so. Selling whatever they might be selling, they won't be doing it in this building. And I think, you know, the emphasis, which I could have stipulated to several moments ago is that the amenities are not open to the public. It's very important. The parking, we have no intentions of it being open to the public, unless as has been discussed in the past, we truly are parked at 1.2 and the municipality is interested in figuring out a way in which we can utilize some of that additional parking to the benefit of the community or the benefit of the public. And that would take a very robust detailed document because we don't necessarily want to introduce the public onto this site. I'd rather have more parking, which I anticipate we will, than we need, than not have enough and give up 10, 20, 30 spaces to an outside agency. So we'll never be doing that. Any of the amenities that we offer in our public spaces we have not completely programmed our public spaces yet, we do so as we get closer to a project being completed, but we intend on having an interior community room at the ground level, that will be available on a routine basis for community functions within the community. It's also available only to our tenants to use for private functions on a very short term basis for birthday parties or a Super Bowl party, things along those lines. We've got a package room. All of the postal services are taken care of within the lobby area, so the resident will enter our lobby and he'll be picking up his mail in his own US Postal approved post office box. We also know that nowadays with Amazon and the like a package room is very important. We even consider in some of our buildings now a refrigerated package room with all of the deliveries that come both from the short term delivery services and things like Peapod and Fresh Direct and things like that. So we consider even refrigerated package rooms. It's also important to know that our entire premises are also security, that we have cameras that are 24/7 monitored that will provide us with video if there's any issues on site. So these are very secure sites both interior to our project, at our amenity decks, and throughout the perimeter of the development in order to give those residents just every comfort level. We're not gating. I think that was something that came up. The detail that I showed you in terms of how you enter and exit the parking below the building, we will not be gating those spaces. And maybe it's a good time when a question came up, I think with Debbie and Melanie regarding how we enforce parking, so what would be doing is, is one of several methods. We'd either be giving out placards that hang from rearview mirrors, whatever ultimately the management on this site feels is going to be the most visible for them. Sometimes it's stickers. Sometimes it's placards. Sometimes it's a variety of techniques, where they're going to be given an assigned number of parking spaces and they're going to have a placard that's going to be assigned for that unit. And that unit's number is going to be consistent with that space. And they're going to be parking there. Now, there are going to be the unassigned parking spaces which will be available to our residents. We require, as visitors come to this site, that they register their vehicle. It's usually a very quick "write your license plate and your number down" and assuming we don't see a vehicle that's consistently parking there on a daily basis where we know someone's, you know, sneaking into the lot and running to the train, we try and, you know, be loose with how we enforce the visitor's parking because we don't want them to think that, you know, that we're overstepping our bounds. But we have a very sufficient system in place by which we monitor our residents' parking and our visitors' parking to ensure that third parties are not parking on this site. I think that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: David, did you have any questions at this point? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Scott, you mentioned a couple of developments that you had in Fair Lawn?
MR. LOVENTHAL: I'm sorry.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  In Fair Lawn? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I have one development, two development that we built   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  What are the names of those again? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  It's Fair Lawn Promenade which is the development that's on Route 208 which we opened about three years ago. And that has the Starbucks and it's a commercial and residential site. Our residential buildings, we have 150 residential units in two building at the rear of the property, 75,000 square feet of commercial space. And next door to that property is Fair Lawn Commons which is a different style of housing. Those are the walk up buildings, three story    two  and three story walk ups, more of a suburban setting. But    question?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Are they close to the Nabisco?  
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes. That's correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah? Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That's right. Just south of Nabisco, just south of Columbia Savings and the Mack Cali building or what was formerly Mack Cali. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And they have tandem parking, you said? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: That's correct. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That Fair Lawn Promenade project has tandem parking under both buildings.  The buildings have been in occupancy now for approximately three years. And I am not aware of a single safety issue or a single incident, nor a single resident who did not find    who found issue with the tandem parking. Management says it operates very efficiently.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.
MR. LOVENTHAL: You're welcome.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So just remind me.
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I know Peapod, Amazon, all the deliveries that come, you know with those units there could be quite a few.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So what is the plan for deliver? Where is the    where do the trucks deliver?
MR. LOVENTHAL: So we have identified a delivery space actually it's the space along the most southern driveway, I could walk over and point to it.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Sure.
MR. LOVENTHAL: That's striped. This is, again, a 30 foot    31 foot wide one way driveway.  We're striped along the most southern curb line and that is striped for deliveries, short term only, so with have the opportunity for both moving vans as well as those quick deliveries, but I'll be honest with you, with no parking, no parallel parking located along the frontage of our project, we can't police whether UPS, the postal service or FedEx quickly stops, runs their packages in, and runs out. They may very well deal with your local law enforcement if they want to enforce those rules, but we do provide that parking that's available for those trucks and we have found that two spaces which in this case is about 70 feet long, which is more than two spaces for most of those small box trucks, is more than you sufficient.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I mean realistically they will park in the street   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Correct.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:     and jump out and make those deliveries.
MR. LOVENTHAL: I would suggest to you that that's probably the case as it the case in most of your downtown. And, quite frankly, most places, you know, where there    their third party delivery services, while we can encourage them to use the spaces that are provided    and what often becomes the case is there    as you all know from your places of businesses as your    and your home, those routes are very routine. Those drivers are often the same. I can tell you that we will always attempt to enforce the utilization of your parking spaces, but obviously we can't enforce parking on a public roadway. We can only encourage that they park in the right place.  If there's another suggestion that you have I would certainly be willing to listen. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, let me just ask another question because you've done all this traffic analysis based on cars coming and going that may or may not be living tenants, but where was the analysis of the potential impact of those vehicles or is that something that's just not contemplated? And maybe it's a question for John Jahr. I mean I don't know, maybe you have some analysis or study that you've done at other locations as to how many vehicles of Peapod or Amazon, et cetera, come every day, but certainly that could add to the impact.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I would    without being a traffic expert, I will allow Dan to step up and John Jahr to offer his testimony, but my    my suggestion to    to answer that question is that is ITE which is what Dan and John refer to, the appropriate standards, I would only suspect, includes, based on the type of use that's being analyzed, those various types of potential deliveries that may exist, and I would rather Dan step up and offer that on the record as an expert.
MR. JAHR: If Dan wants to sit he can sit. The trip generation proposed in the a.m. peak hour calculations would actually include that. But most of the time those deliveries don't take place between the 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 hours. So those    so the study is not studying that time period when we typically sees those deliveries. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. That's my questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances, questions? 
MS. BARTO:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I just quickly    I wanted to just    I go right back to the elevator thing for one second    
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Sure.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    just kind of past too quickly and I'm envisioning in my head somebody on the fourth floor of this building being given CPR, you know, and being in cardiac arrest and then being propped up and put in an elevator and brought down to an ambulance and it's not possible that it is really not.  So I actually looked up New Jersey Building Code and it does say that elevators and new dwellings are to include or should provide, regardless of height, it has to meet the dimensional requirements of a 24 by84 inch stretcher laying flat horizontally. So I am wondering will this    do your elevators    I didn't catch what size you said they were, but will they then meet that?  Because I mean I don't know how else you'd get some    you know, somebody down.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I am going to stipulate so you that it has been our experience in the past that while there may be one or two medical occasions that would suggest that they lie flat, we are providing elevators that are required under New Jersey building code that meet those dimensions   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  The 84 by 24 inch?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  If    if that's what they that, that's what we're providing. That's stipulated.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Well, that's the stretcher size I'm      I don't know   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Well, are you    are you reading The elevator section? Are you reading a stretcher section?  Because I have the elevator detail   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No, I'm reading the elevator section   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Okay.  In a residential mid rise building? Or in a healthcare scenario?
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No, in a residential building and in    so it actually says in new buildings, residential buildings four or more stories above grade four    four or more stories below grade has to be   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Okay.
MS. McWILLIAMS:     at least one elevator shall be provided for the fire department emergency access to all floors, the cars shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate a 24 by 84 inch ambulance stretcher in a horizontal open position.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, I'm going to stipulate that if that's what you're telling me is the current code then that's what our elevators will provide.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  We're going to meet the code.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Right. I    I just wanted to check I mean I was hearing that you can't    there's just certain medical instances in which you cannot properly back up and bring them down. And I hope you're never    you know we're never in that position. But it certainly happens so, all right.  Okay.  Especially    I mean yes. 
MR. LOVENTHAL: Our elevators will meet today's building code as it's required for accommodating those stretchers.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Debbie? 
MS. PATIRE:  Sure. 
So I did a little research on your website and I understand you're building both commercial and residential.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Correct.
MS. PATIRE:  And my question to you is, is all of your residential are rentals, correct? So there's no   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No.
MS. PATIRE:    no condos or   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No, that's not   
MS. PATIRE:  That's not correct.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.  So in the State of New Jersey   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:     what would you say around is your split on rental and condominium? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: That are currently in development? That are currently in construction? That have been constructed over the last 50 years of our organization and business? 
MS. PATIRE: Anything that's up    anything that's under construction and built.
MR. LOVENTHAL: Anything that's under construction   
MS. PATIRE:  That's currently under construction. Let's say that's   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I would say currently we're doing approximately 80 percent of our projects as rental and approximately 20 percent as for sale single family condominium or townhome.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  In Bergen County it happens to be about a 50/50 split. I've got four for sale communities that are currently being finished and three or four rental communities that are in development or construction.
MS. PATIRE: And so how do you make your decision on if something is going to be a rental property or a condo property?
MR. LOVENTHAL: That's a very good question. There is often analysis done. And in this instance the analysis was done that a rental community and the analysis is we're looking at the existing housing stock at the time that we're identifying the property. There are times that even in the cycle because real estate is very cyclical even within the cycle we are considering a project that may have initially been considered for rental, we consider for for sale. And sometimes vice versa. So there is a number of factors that are considered, local demographics, the aging population, a variety of factors that are studied and in    and the analysis and, ultimately, we came to a conclusion that there was a void in this community for this type of rental community and from day one we were prepared to go with a rental community. The trend recently has been based on that concept of renters by choice and there being less of a stigma that may have in previous generations been associated with rental product, that more product than not that's new is being built as rentals and the market is    is absorbing that product in a very healthy way.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay. The management company who will run the building is that under you guys.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That's correct.
MS. PATIRE:  It's your management company?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That's correct.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL: It's in house management   
MS. PATIRE:  Got it.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We don't sub out management. We also say, well I never use    like to use the word "never" we're a generational builder. We're a privately owned company. While there are occasions where projects get sold, this is a business like anything else, we generally hold our projects as a generational builder for the long term and manage them in house for the long term.  So you will be able to find me if you have an issue because I stay personally involved with each of my projects, not just till final CO, but throughout from a bigger picture perspective, but the communities that I have developed and I maintain a rapport with that community well beyond final CO.
MS. PATIRE:  Understood.  And you guys I think you said were based in was it   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Short Hills.
MS. PATIRE:     Short Hills?  
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Correct.
MS. PATIRE:  So    and I appreciate the reference to Fair Lawn because it's close to us.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:  So for this scaled project we'll call it somewhere around 100 units   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:    I think you were saying it's kind of a minimum you do   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, that's usually our    that's right. And larger. 
MS. PATIRE:  Got it. Have you done anything in and around call it Summit, Chatham, Westfield?  And I know you said something in Allendale, I'm not York sure where that is, but are there anything that you guys have done call it in the past five years in any of those communities   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:    that you can talk about? 
Could you tell us   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I'm just curious, talk about in what perspective? 
MS. PATIRE:  What are the names of them, I guess? And my follow up question to that would be, you know, you said you're targeting young professionals and empty nesters.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:  So, I go back to, even in I guess in Fair Lawn   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:    we can talk about as well, what were your expectations, I guess, was it going to be 50 percent young professionals and 50 percent empty nesters? And who actually wound up renting units? So I'll make it up did families come in? Did you find it was definitely a swing towards, you know, millennials and    I'm just curious on what you see in your experience in the past, call it even three years, as the projects changed.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I'll start locally. We have not seen a significant change in terms of the demographic that might be renting in this type of project. When you made    when you asked that question, we built a variety of product types in Summit we did luxury townhomes. In Cranford we built a project that is almost identical to this that's at the train station in downtown Cranford.  It's 116 or 118 total units. We are seeing a very similar demographic in each of these developments with less emphasis on young professionals. We're finding that it appears that young professionals are migrating back to the cities and not staying in the suburbs and we're finding more of an emphasis on empty nesters. I will also say that a market that is often targeted is divorcees.  Sometimes a husband who doesn't want to leave a community because his wife and children are living there, and just needs an apartment in town, wants something high quality, wants some extra bedrooms for the children when they visit or they share that experience. So we're find divorcees is    is something that in a rental scenario because of the economics of a rental and not the permanent nature of purchasing something, divorcees become a player. 
MS. PATIRE:  Right.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We completed a project that is almost identical to this in Springfield, right at the Baltusrol Country Club primarily all empty nesters, very few    because you're not accessible to a desirable downtown, it's more suburban product. It's adjacent to an affluent country club. So you're finding a lot of empty nesters that belong to the club who live part of the year in warmer climates and are here during golf season. So that project is called Skyline Ridge that you see from Route 78 on the left side. It's a highly amenitized luxury project that is in Springfield. Riverfront is our project in Cranford that I just referred to approximately 116 to 118 units and a commercial component. Fair Lawn Promenade right here on 208, is certainly a place that you can take a look at    at the level of amenities and welcomed, as I've always done to both the governing body and the Planning Board, welcome an advanced notice, we can have the management walk you through, take a look at things at any point.
MS. PATIRE:  For your rentals   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:    do you normally go out and is it a one year rental, do you try to get two    year    only one year rentals?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Correct. A 12 year    a 12 month term. Excuse me. A 12 month term, 1 year rentals.
MS. PATIRE:  One year rentals.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That's correct.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Always one year.
MS. PATIRE:  And the    the    I guess does the current occupant/tenant have a first right of refusal on when you say   
MR. LOVENTHAL: The law required that we offer all occupants that are in good standing a renewal.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Renewals depending on the    either the municipal, if they have any type of a rent control in place or market conditions dictate what the rent might be on renewal.  Sometimes it remains flat sometimes there's an increase. And in the rare occasion there's concessions that are given if the market isn't warranting... 
MS. PATIRE:  Just a couple other questions, sorry. From a rental perspective does the management company go out and lease those? Do you work with realtors how does that   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No. On the rental side? 
MS. PATIRE:  On the rental side.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  All of our leasing, I would say 90 percent of our leasing now is done on line.  We have a website GardenCommunities.com. I welcome you to take a look. All of it is automated.  We rarely are even printing brochures anymore. We find that people are printing our PDFs right off of the website and are coming in and are signing applications either on line or otherwise.
So we're not, in our rental portfolio, utilizing any outside brokerage firms. The portfolios are    we're using the typical websites that you're seeing ForRent.com, Rent.com, Apartments.com. And our own website. We have a lot of search engine optimization in our website. We come up very high in every list in a community where someone puts in, you know, rentals in Ridgewood who are so inclined.  
MS. PATIRE:  I have another question, and I'm not sure who this is to, Chris, so let's just pretend there's 5 units that have gone unrented for a year. I'm going to make this up. Are they allowed to sub those out to like an air bnb or things like that? 
MR. MARTIN:  If there's an ordinance, I'm not sure if there's an ordinance on subletting.
MS. PATIRE:  Is there an ordinance?  I just    I    
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  We have an ordinance.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Remember this   
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    an air bnb is usually and owner of a condominium    an individual condominium that would be renting   
MS. PATIRE:  Yeah.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    his unit.
In this instance   
MS. PATIRE:  Yeah, I'm just asking   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, in this instance   
MS. PATIRE:     because the world is changing and...
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes, We're not utilizing any of those pseudo hotel or overnight service. We don't need to. Our portfolio is currently about 97 percent plus occupied which in most investors' eyes is 100 percent occupancy because there's always a 3  to 5 percent occupancy factor    vacancy factor considered. 
MS. PATIRE:  So you don't see us competing with the Lair Lawn property?  What are your    what are your rental there in Fair Lawn for a one bedroom and a two bedroom? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Our one bedrooms start at 2,000 at month.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  And our    we do have two  and three bedrooms there that go up to almost 4,000 a month.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay. And have you figured out what the rentals would be in Ridgewood based on when    I know the market can change.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  The market does change. We have a range but   
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    we'll be analyzing that right up until a week before we open   
MS. PATIRE:  So do you expect this being in and around the same ball park? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes, probably slightly higher depending on the unit and the square footage, slightly higher than those numbers.
MS. PATIRE:  All right.  Great.
MR. MARTIN:  There was a quick question on corporate relocation around here is kind of popular as you know   
MR. LOVENTHAL: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the first part?   
MR. MARTIN:  Corporate relocation.
MR. LOVENTHAL corporate relocation? 
MR. MARTIN: All throughout the area, I mean, Allendale, Mahwah, Ramsey, wherever, anything like that where there's a relationship with like    just making this up    the Montvale Mercedes or something, if they have a corporate relationship that they    you keep a couple of apartments and their businessman may come over and stay for a year with their family or whatever.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We haven't entered into any   
MR. MARTIN:  No, but   
MR. LOVENTHAL:    of type of those arrangements in the past. They may become more and more prevalent in the future. I will say on the for sale side we utilize, you know, the national firms that Weichert, Caldwell Banker, with regard to the corporate relocation. They generally bring us buyers in   
MR. MARTIN:  And generally it's condos, right? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.  It's more in the condo market. On the rental side, any of those services could simply go on line and then    and, you know, of course try and collect a fee from the perspective renter. We're not paying outside fees to those services, we just don't need to.
MR. MARTIN:  Right.  Thank you.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Just a quick question about the Allendale property   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Sure.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Sorry to interrupt. Who ended up    you said    I think you said Cranford that you ended up more with empty nesters   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. McWILLIAMS:     and    so who ended up in the Allendale   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  So Allendale is a townhome for sale community.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  So it's a little different   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:     the price points there were    it's a gated community, units that range, you know, they are individual units.  They're townhomes   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I wouldn't even   
MR. LOVENTHAL:    and condo flats. It's very difficult to put it in perspective. Allendale also a very good regional school system it's really hard to put it in perspective. We have more families there because those    you know, the towns today become more   
MS. McWILLIAMS: Did you not find in Fair Lawn it was a lot of families as well? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No, we have very few school age children. Do I know the number off the top of my head? I don't. But I can tell you that the school biz does not even enter the property in Fair Lawn, with 150 units there are very few    and when I say very few, it's probably    we have 150 units there. I would say there might be 10 to 12, and they're not full time residents. They're often the    I don't want to say "victims" that's not fair. They're often the    result is the right word, they're often the result of divorces as opposed to the victim.
MR. WELLS:  MR. LOVENTHAL, we're far afield   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We're far off from here   
MR. WELLS:     from the site plan.  But   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I got it.  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  But since we're this far off   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I got it.
MR. WELLS: I recollect when the project in Fair Lawn was rented three years ago, at that time you were surprised by the number of Ridgewood residents that went there. Do you know how that ended up? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: We had quite a few Ridgewood residents in the Fair Lawn project. 
Can I quantify it?  No, but out management reminded me    our managers, and again, there was a reference to third party management, it's not third party management. The managers work directly for me, work directly for our organization. There are a good number of Ridgewood residents. They are primarily empty nesters who sold large homes. They took some of our larger units. And they said it's as close as they could be to Ridgewood since the product isn't currently available for them in town. So    but they're happy residents of Fair Lawn now. 
MS. PATIRE:  Do you think they'd prefer a condo    sorry. 
MR. WELLS:  We really should try to go back to the site plan.
MS. PATIRE:  I know I just   
MR. WELLS:  It's okay.
MS. PATIRE:  Obviously that was a joke.
MR. WELLS:  No, it's    he's selling units up here. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Exactly. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Isabella? 
MS. ALTANO:  Yes.  Thank you for your presentation. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. ALTANO:  I just wanted to ask a question, you spoke about green areas.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Green areas, yes.
MS. ALTANO:  And this is more of a architectural concern. 
What is the distance between    from one unit to the other? If we're    we're at the window   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Across the amenity decks? 
MS. ALTANO: Across, yes.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I can look exactly. I think I said in the 40  to 50 foot range. I'm not sure there's a dimension on here, but I could see by parking spaces so let's call it    yes that's about 50 feet.
MS. ALTANO: It's 50 feet.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  If you're interested I have an exhibit that was presented by the architect as to what those amenity decks look like. I only have one. But if you wanted to pass it along just to get a sense of what an amenity deck looks like. And, in fact, it's in a project that is built locally in Cranford. I can grab it if you'd like to see?
MS. ALTANO:  Sure. If it's available. And can I continue with questions   
MR. LOVENTHAL: Certainly.
MS. ALTANO:    as you look for it. So I'm    I'm concerned about privacy and I'm concerned about does it    I feel a little bit more confident because it's 50 feet, however what if there's something going on in there and these people are right there. And I am talking in terms about noise and concern, you know, if anybody is using the green area for a    I don't know a party? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I could tell you it hasn't been an issue in the past. We have rules and regulations in place regarding noise, regarding what can be done. There's no ball playing. There's no loud music. We set hours and then those amenity decks are    have access cards that residents are given and those access cards don't operate after certain hours. So they can't go out onto the amenity deck overnight. We have not    our amenity decks are pretty consistent with what we've done in other projects, in terms of the distance between buildings and as I think I tried to describe each of those units will have it's own small private balcony or terrace at the ground level. And then there will be a screen, it's usually an aluminum rail and a small bedding of landscaping. It's usually only around 4 foot in height but it creates that barrier between the private balcony and the rest of the amenity deck. And 50 feet is certainly not an issue at all in terms of any issues regarding, you know, violations of anyone's privacy.
MS. ALTANO: Right. I'm also concerned about light coming, as you go higher, the flow of light coming to the darker floors.
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes, the amenity decks are generally lit with architectural lighting that's low to the ground, that's just dealing with raised    there's raised planters that some have some access lighting on those planters. But most of the amenity deck have very low landscape lighting, low voltage landscaping lighting it's just providing a lot more safety. And as I said they're not open late at night.  So it's really not a matter, you know, in the winter    in the summer months you have lighting till 8:00, 8:30. There's some very limited decorative lighting which we provide for safety on those decks but nothing that's going to be an issue   
MS. ALTANO: Okay. That's fine. And you said you have another project that's very similar to this one. So have you included those areas in those projects? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Say that again?  Did we?   
MS. ALTANO:  You mentioned that you have built another project that is similar to this.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes, I'm going to show you that picture   
MS. ALTANO:  That's the one you were talking about.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    if I ever find it, but I'm having trouble multitasking at the very moment.
But here is it. And this is   
MS. ALTANO:  And that's worked well in terms of that space.
MR. WELLS:  We're going to mark that   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  The    yes, the spaces are well received   
MR. WELLS:     A 23? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:    and have   
MR. KOHUT:  We marked it already, it's A 6.
MR. WELLS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  A 6.
MR. KOHUT:  It's A 6. 
MR. WELLS:  Oh, okay.
MR. KOHUT:  A 6.  If you look at A 6, courtyard photograph.
MR. WELLS:  Courtyard photograph, right. 
MR. MARTIN:  Andrew, that's the Cranford Courtyard Photo.
MR. KOHUT:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
MS. ALTANO:  Thank you.
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes, you could pass it around. I only have one. I didn't expect on entering    if you want to enter it as an exhibit we have    it's an electronic file. 
MR. WELLS: Yes, it was entered. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  And that's a    that is actual photograph of our project in Cranford which is located on South Street directly across from the Cranford train station. There's a commercial component in the front where we have Starbucks and a number of retail and restaurant tenants.  And then behind it is the 116 or so units. They happen to follow the same architecture, the Tudor architecture we utilized in Cranford as you can see in those   
MS. McWILLIAMS: How tall is this one? Do you know    do you happen to know.
MR. LOVENTHAL: The overall height? It's both a    it's three  and four stories over parking.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  So it's    it's   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Roughly the same.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    it's the same as this.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yeah.
MS. ALTANO:  That was it. Thank you.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  You're welcome. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel, do you have questions? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: How many years have you been with Garden Homes.
MR. LOVENTHAL: I'm almost embarrassed to say I'll be celebrating my 25th anniversary. I'm an attorney by trade and did start as an in house attorney and transitioned over to the development business, but I will be there 25th years in September. And I'm only 27. (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's the answer I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  I was there after two years. But almost 25 years, over 20 years on the development side and about five years handling what Tom is doing, land use and transactional deals.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.
And what are the lease terms you would offer, is it only a year? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Correct. It's only one year terms that are all renewable.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any exceptions? Do you ever do a shorter lease for anybody? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  No. We don't. We don't do short term    the only time you have an opportunity to do a shorter term is if you've already been there for a 12 month period for one year, you have an option of signing a short term rider and you pay for that rider for the privilege of having a 90 day period. Let's say, if you're in transition, about to move, but not shorter, no short term rentals at all. The 12 month is the    is the minimum term.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And the Fair Lawn project is that fully rented? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: Fully rented, correct. We've had virtually no vacancies. And where we've had a vacancy because it is the business of rentals, and people are there often because they're in a transitional time and it's transient hosing to a certain extent, I say that positively, not negatively.  All    any vacancy we've had has been rented within a two week period. So we maintain just about 100 percent occupancy at all times.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you.
John, did you have any questions for MR. LOVENTHAL? 
MR. JAHR:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Chris, did you have any questions? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  None.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Beth, did you have any questions? 
MS. McMANUS:  I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have another quick question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, sure. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Are these the balconies that you're proposing for this project? Is this similar?
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Right.  So you have    these are only French balconies that have   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh, okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:     on this courtyard. The ground level is what I was referring to where you see that they actually have a private balcony that's then separated by landscaping   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh, okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    these particular units you're not seeing it, there's only some Juliette or French balconies.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right, that's what these are.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Exactly.   
Yes, they just don't have the full balconies.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Now what is it    just out of curiosity, what is the width of that? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  That's also approximately 45 feet, if I'm not mistaken.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Really? 
MR. MARTIN:  So each level of    each level would have its own balcony, not    not for    in the Dayton would have its own balcony?  
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Each unit we're proposing in our project to have its own balcony there may be other windows where there are corner units that we are proposing in our elevations some of those Juliette French balcony, they're more decorative. But every unit there we're proposing does have its own balcony, correct. Or if they're on the ground floor being on that amenity deck it's a patio. 
MR. MARTIN:  And how big    how big is the deck on the balcony? Is it 4 feet 6? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: They're about 4 feet wide and then usually about 8 to, 10, 12 foot    usually you can put a    you know, a 32 round    32 inch circumference table with, you know, two or four chairs.
MR. MARTIN: Understood.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  So there's room for people to utilize those for passive recreation.
MS. PATIRE:  Scott, do you allow pets in your building? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  So that's a good question.
We haven't decided whether we will allow pets here. We've gone back and forth based on the market. In Fair Lawn I split the difference and one building is pet friendly and one building is not    no pets. So we kind of hedged our bets there. Fair Lawn we only have, I think, about six dogs and a handful of cats in the 150 units. And we only allow them, as I said, in the one building.
MS. PATIRE:  Right.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We're not sure what we're going to do here yet. We really    you know what we'll probably do, what we would do about six months before we do an, kind of a peer group, where we solicit prospective renters and we try and take their temperature. The trend is being pet=friendly and gives a revenue source as well because most of the competitors and we are charging for a pet because of, you know, issues associated with damage that they may do and things like that. So there are changes.
MS. PATIRE:  And I have one other question, as a general rule of thumb do you keep X percent of net revenues for improvements to buildings in   
MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes. There' a reserve that's kept on each project. So each of our projects are single asset entities. Every project is run independently of one another. We take an internal management fee. We charge back our expenses to each project individually. And then we do have a reserve that's put aside for the capital improvements as needed.
MS. PATIRE:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. We're going to opportunity it up to the public.
Does anyone from the public have questions for MR. LOVENTHAL? 
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing none.
Oh, state your name, address, spell your last name.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Lorraine Reynolds,
550 Wyndemere Avenue.
Just a quick question the one apartment complex in Cranford that you said is similar to this? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS: Do you know    you may have said it but I didn't hear, do you know what the percentage is of empty nesters and millennials or families are in that one? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: I don't know specifically, but I think it's very consistent with what I've suggested most of our new projects in these suburban communities in New Jersey have been made up of, which is a rather small percentage of families, and a second category would be singles and young couples, young professionals. And the more predominant is empty nesters. In fact we're finding    and this is not suggestion as it relates to this application, that there is significant room in the market because of our aging population for all age restricted projects. We have several rental communities that are all age restricted which you didn't see many years ago and that's because we're now finding that we're losing much of market share because there are not significant numbers of young people that are living in these developments   
MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    in the suburbs. Today the trend is that most of those young professionals are finding their way back to the larger cities because that's where the vibrancy is.
MS. REYNOLDS:  And are you finding that either category, either the empty nesters or the young professionals, if there's two people in the apartment, do they tend to have    do either the older people or the younger people tend to have two cars? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: It depends. I can only answer that by suggesting to you that we comply with RSIS in each of our projects. And by complying with RSIS, I am not aware of any parking issues that exist. Cranford is a perfect example because their downtown has some of the same challenges that Ridgewood's downtown has, we have the same parking count. We're meeting RSIS at approximately 2.0, despite they're being directly across from the rail where there are suggestions that waivers are acceptable from RSIS, that you could go down to 1.2   
MS. REYNOLDS:  Uh huh.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    we still have    don't quote me, but approximately 2.0, we might have between 1.8 and 2.0. All having to park on site because the municipal parking is very challenging.  And we don't have any issues.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL: So whether it's one or two cars and what ends up happening, because we assign and you register your car with us as the owner and manager of the complex, we don't lead to the parking problems that may be    that you might think exist because we're limiting those number of registered automobiles to that unit. We're not allowing more than two vehicles to be registered for a particular unit. So we kind of control that.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Even if somebody wanted, somebody had a   
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS:     25 year old move back in with them, they can't bring    they can't have another car? 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  And, again, there might be occasions by which    but our general rule is that a unit is only    we're reserving that space, those spaces, those vehicles are registered for that unit, one or two spaces, and that's generally    yes, there are unassigned spaces on site and I'm not going to suggest to you that there isn't an occasion where, yes, that third person, if the child comes home from college and is there for the summer   
MS. REYNOLDS:  Uh huh.
MR. LOVENTHAL:    or moves back in that there might be an additional car. That certainly can    all I can suggest to you is that we don't have parking issues where we compliant with RSIS   
MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.
MR. LOVENTHAL:     in very similar conditions.
MS. REYNOLDS: All right.  Thanks.
MR. LOVENTHAL: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address, spell your last name.
MR. GLAZER:  Dana Glazer, G l a z e r, 61 Clinton Avenue. According to NorthJersey.com Garden Homes paid $225,000.00 in federal fines to preserve more than 100 acres of land to compensate for its alleged failure the prevent stormwater from flowing off ten construction sites including residential developments in Elmwood Park, River Vale and Allendale. Can you comment on this as how this might relate or not to what's going on here? 
MR. LOVENTHAL: I can only comment that you're reading an article, that's fine. I can comment that we can, do and will comply with all environmental regulations. What you're reading is something that there was an enforcement action as it relates to many high profile developers by the EPA in New Jersey. It was primarily recordkeeping so what you read in the paper doesn't necessarily mean that that's what the enforcement action actually is substantively about. And that as it relates to this project and any project that we built, we meet and exceed all environmental regulations includes discharge of stormwater.
MR. GLAZER:  So did you guys    did you end up paying the $225     
MR. LOVENTHAL:  We did.  We settled a    we entered into a consent decree and our recordkeeping is now where the EPA would like it to be, yes. 
MR. GLAZER:  Thank you.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone else?  (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right, being there are no further questions I guess we're at a    a point that we'll end the application right now.  And I guess   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, I'm sorry, Richard, we    we're going to ask John some questions at some point and   
MR. MARTIN:  Can I make a suggestion?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes. 
MR. WELLS:  Can I    since we're very close to the end and the only thing you have to do is your two witnesses and they're pretty covered, why don't we get that done? 
MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr. Wells, it's about ten after ten, I do have to speak with the board, nothing to do with this application, but it's an executive session issue. I believe we have three professionals and, quite frankly, I think you're going to sum up. And I do want to open it to    I told Andrew as well as I wasn't told that it was going to be summation. So I need an opportunity to prepare for the board, you know, what I usually do is a submission to the board before a vote.
MR. WELLS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: I mean you got another date for June 20th and I mean if the board has any   
MR. WELLS: I understand that, and asked for that date so that we could be prepared to do that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MR. WELLS: I'm just suggesting that for continuity, I mean it's not that late in the evening.  I suspect, for example, MR. JAHR is basically done. I think he even indicated that. He won't to come back another night if we just spend another new minutes and finish him up. That's all I'm saying. 
MR. MARTIN: Is it your proposal that you would sum up and there is board discussion and a vote on the other date or after these people testify that night   
MR. WELLS: Yes. Yes. I'd be happy to do that. And I understand your concern about wanting to be able to legally instruct them and so forth. Although we have    we have accommodated the fact that we've extended this application many, many times we can do it one more time, in order to get us to the end. I'm just saying efficiency right now, at least MR. JAHR, who is basically done, I think we should finish. That's all I'm suggesting.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't think John is done yet. I have a couple questions for him.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You want to ask him.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, we do need a break then?  
(Whereupon, off the record discussion is held.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right. We'll take a five minute break.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.) 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Call the meeting back to order.
Michael, can you call the roll?
MR. CAFARELLI:  MAYOR KNUDSEN? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yes, here.
MR. CAFARELLI:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Mr. Torielli? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. McWILLIAMS?  
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  MR. SCHEIBNER?
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Mr. Joel?
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. ALTANO?
MS. ALTANO:  Here.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. PATIRE? 
MS. PATIRE:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. BARTO? 
MS. BARTO:  Here.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I guess we'll proceed with MR. JAHR and finish him. 
MR. WELLS:  Then we'll call it a night, yes.  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, okay.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR, you remain sworn and you remain qualified. 
J O H N  J A H R,
Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MR. MARTIN: So any questions, I guess, Chair? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. You want to just give us the benefit of any additional direct that you have with respect to this development application? 
MR. JAHR: With regard    I believe I covered it previously in my testimony that all my concerns have been resolved to this point and brought in through testimony by the applicant. I think at this point I will just open myself to questions of the board, any questions or clarifications or concerns.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Sure. 
All right.  Dave, we'll start with you. Do you have any questions for MR. JAHR? 
MR. SCHREIBER: You're satisfied that the tandem parking is not truly an issue? 
MR. JAHR: Tandem parking is not    is not my favorite kind of parking. I    I don't I don't see it operating very differently than what their traffic engineer testified, though. It's very similar to what works with my single family house and most others. Do I try not to have it?  Yes, I    do I think the applicant probably tried not to have it? I think that so too. It does appear to me that it will work just like the other spaces. It's just an inconvenience for those people who have to, you know, be behind one another. So I do think that    I don't see a safety issue with it because it's going to operate like the other parking spaces in the area. So I see an inconvenience for the owners. I think that they're probably going to park in other spaces that might be empty. But I think it'll be safe.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  And do you see any problem with the tandem parking at the end of an aisle, where there's only one direction that the vehicles can exit from the tandem parking?
MR. JAHR:  Well, I    I see it operating just like any other parking space at the end of an aisle. So I don't    I don't see    I don't see that being very different than any other parking spaces at the end of an aisle. It's always nice not to have a space at the end of the aisle and to have some, you know, you know, where you stripe it off or that's where they put like a green island or something. I'm sure you see that in the commercial lots a lot. But not really an option here in this case. 
MR. SCHREIBER: That's all. Thank you.
MR. WELLS: COUNCILMAN VOIGT? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: John, can you opine on the consideration of the garage being built on Hudson Street and how that might affect this development and the traffic flow in that area?  I know that we had talked in some preliminary way about changing some of the exits from the Hudson Street, garage going up Hudson Street, and then taking a left on South Broad, to get out during the evening is    how is this    how would a garage affect    in that area affect this particular development? 
MR. JAHR: There is no question that should the Village consider and someday hopefully erect a garage at Hudson Street that there would be effect on South Broad and Hudson Street and Passaic Street as a    as a system. The driveways at this development operate at very high levels of service. So even with the addition of the garage I don't anticipate seeing their driveway level of services having much of a change. However, I do feel that, you know, as we    if we do put the garage there, it will be more traffic in the area, so I think that the improvement which the developer has offered to put forward in    by way of, you know, sidewalk improvements and widening and handicap ramps and crosswalks, and whatnot, will definitely help to    to mitigate at least their impacts and their negative effects on what could be a potentially very good project for the Village at some point in the future.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So from a sidewalk standpoint that will be in ADA compliance with, kind of, the ramps on the sidewalks as well, is correct? Did you put that in your report? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. MAYOR KNUDSEN.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have no questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Frances?
MS. BARTO:  No questions right now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS: I think at the moment I'm comfortable unless you    I mean do you have any other outstanding concerns that you would address to us to take, just a better look, or a closer look at as we go through this? 
MR. JAHR:  Well, I think I went over those in my report.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  In your report.
MR. JAHR:  Yes.  And I covered that.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Rather I mean anything from tonight?
MR. JAHR: I would say that's a very open question. And I would like to answer by saying the report I did for both the Chestnut Village and for this are very similar in regards to my feelings about the need for the Village to seriously consider some updates to the ordinance that include requiring sidewalks and certain other pedestrian improvements and focusing more on necessarily    actually kind of the opposite that you had the discussion before about widened the street, I would like to see us widen the sidewalks. I would like to see us   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think that's in there's as ell, some of it   
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  But I mean    yes? 
MR. JAHR: Yeah, I'm    I'm really in favor of us capitalizing on our train station and seeing it used to its best potential and best fulfillment for the for the improvement of Ridgewood. And, therefore, creating that safe pedestrian routes and more, you make it easier for people to walk back and forth. There's    you know, it's    it's still nobody wants to get out of the car, but I think you at least do your share. All right. We're doing the best we can to try and encourage people not take their car and to, you know, get out with the umbrella and make the trek at the train station. I know, how many moms have to    have to, you know, I'm the dad that always had to drive my son to school. I'm sorry. I just had to do it. So I    I get that. So my recommendation would be to please continue to be pragmatic, please continue to be mindful of the fact that    that although I agree with Mr. Disario that the traffic generated by this development is not significant. I think DOT has defined that for us. We know what that is. I will say, though, in Ridgewood, our cup is full. And just that one more drop is    that one more drop (indicating) is what you're    is what your concerns are that's what you you're saying, John, we have these traffic issues and that's because the cup's already full. So just the one more drop is making it overflow and creating additional concerns for everyone here. So let's continue to do our best to keep them    you know, widen the sidewalks, keep the traffic volumes down and do our best to do better planning to move forward.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Debbie? 
MS. PATIRE:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Isabella? 
MS. ALTANO:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  I have no questions. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I    I actually have one question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Sorry. So, John, it actually goes to the Councilman's question as, you know, you and I walked down this area a couple of weeks ago with our planner Beth. And the observation was that there were a number of driveway openings, cutouts, on the existing site and that prevented parking along that west side of Broad Street. 
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so there was a moment when we realized or I had realized that if we had    when this development happens, there'll only be one entrance, two entrances and exits.  And so just two    two driveways and that allows us the opportunity to possibly add more parking along the street. So, again, to COUNCILMAN VOIGT' s question, what would happen    even though it has nothing to do in the sense of this    your report, what would happen if we added 20 additional spaces to the street there? 
MR. JAHR: Well, it's something to consider. I'm not sure how those spaces would get used.  In    in fact, you know, it's something that we should look at. I believe that    that right now the proposal is that there be no parking posted along the entire frontage of this project. Is that correct? 
MR. WELLS: That is correct.
MR. JAHR: Okay. So my understanding is right now or I think that what we can look at as the project develops and we see how their parking is, if in fact they have a surplus, which we predict they will have, then maybe put    allowing parking there for the other businesses on Hudson and, you know, possibly other, you know, local community users, for example the church or the nearby schools, might be something we can consider. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. No other questions from the board?
(No response.)  
MR. WELLS:  I have no cross.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mr. Wells?  Okay.
Is there anyone from the public that has questions for MR. JAHR? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Seeing none. So I guess we're finished with MR. JAHR and we're going to continue this application without further notice to June 20th, 2017.
MR. WELLS:  Can I    can I just ask for clarification, it's the intention of the board that MS. McMANUS and MR. RUTISHAUSER would also testify on behalf of the Village?  Is     
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, that would be the intention.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And then there will be public testimony, when people show up for it and want to testify. And then we would close it. And then have public comment. And then you could make your summation.
MR. WELLS:  Good.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MS. McMANUS:  I'm terribly sorry, but I just    knowing that this meeting is going to be carried to June 20th, I just checked my calendar. I have a conflict that evening.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
MS. McMANUS:  Perhaps, if the board were so inclined I can give a little bit of testimony tonight so as to avoid having to send somebody in my place? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
MS. McMANUS:  I'm sorry to throw this   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MS. McMANUS:     out at the last minute.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Well, do you know how long your testimony is?
MS. McMANUS: I don't anticipate it would be long because quite frankly the applicant    I had a few comments in my report and the applicant's already addressed a few of them.  And if    of course if the board would like me to send somebody in my place I'm happy to do so, but    but there might be an opportunity to address the majority or perhaps all of the comments. 
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Wells, I happen to think that MS. McMANUS should testify tonight.
MR. WELLS:  I do too. As I said before, and we still would   
MR. MARTIN:  I think someone else should still come on that day.
MR. WELLS:  We'll still be happy to come back on the 20th. We understand that the board isn't ready to conclude this evening but so we'll come back on the 20th. But I think if we can take a couple more minutes, I think we can get it done.
MR. MARTIN: Just highlights.
MS. McMANUS: Okay. I will try to be brief in my    in my comments this evening.
MR. MARTIN: I don't know if I swore you on this one.
MS. McMANUS: I don't think so.
MR. MARTIN: Raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MS. McMANUS:  I do.
E L I Z A B E T H  M c M A N U S, 100 Barrack Street, Trenton, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: And just for the record state your full name and your business address.
MS. McMANUS: My name is Elizabeth McManus. I'm a planner with Clarke Caton Hintz, planner for the board. My business address is 100 Barrack Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.
MR. MARTIN:  So stipulate to professional planner expert?
MR. WELLS:  I will.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
MS. McMANUS:  Okay. So I issued a report on March 30, 2017, for this application. There are two sections that I would like to highlight for comments this evening. The first section is Item 2.4    and I should also add that the applicant provided in his    in new stipulations for my report in the    in the exhibits that were handed out this evening all of these items were addressed to some extent. But I want to go through those with the applicant. So the first item is item 2.4 in my report on page 2, it states that the Village's ordinance requires that parking shall be screened with    excuse me    in accordance with Section 190 118.3(e)10(d) if parking is proposed under the building, as it is, it shall be screened with architectural elements consistent with the building materials. I know that the applicant previously provided testimony during one of the hearings which was pointed out in the stipulations. The comment is really that although the testimony was    may have been provided there's no    there's no images provided in the testimony. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Well, there actually was.
MS. McMANUS:  Okay.  I didn't have those exhibits.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  Right. The full set of site plans on sheet A 2.1 rear, right and left side elevations are shown with the proposed detail for the screening. So that's    that's a full set of plans that's already an exhibit.
MR. MARTIN: And, Mr. Wells, what number is that exhibit? 
MR. WELLS:  I can give it to you as well. 
MR. KOHUT:  It's A 3.
MR. MARTIN:  A 3.  Thank you.
MS. McMANUS:  Okay. Thank you. 
MR. LOVENTHAL:  The architectural detail is    is decorative aluminum rails that we utilized that you may also be seeing in some of the rendered photos that are exhibits as well. 
MS. McMANUS:  Thank you.
MR. LOVENTHAL: You're welcome.
MS. McMANUS: So I am happy to answer any questions, but quite frankly I was really looking for an opportunity to review that exhibit. The applicant's provided that at this point so I can take a look if I have any further questions I'll alert the board prior to your next meeting. The next section I'd like to address in my report is Section 4 beginning on page 6. And this is my general commentary section. And as I said when I first opened up my comments is that a number of these items have been addressed. Item 4.1 requested additional information on how those exterior amenity areas would be accessed. The applicant has indicated through the testimony at various points this evening that those amenity areas will be accessed from the first floor. And so there'll be a balcony for   each resident has a balcony then there's also common area access to these amenity areas. And so that comment   my question has been satisfied. Item 4.2 we requested some amendments to the plant material, the applicant has indicated that they'll comply. So I have no further comments on that item. Item 4.3 is additional commentary on the architecture. Simply providing some guidance to the board, if you're so inclined to provide    to ask additional questions about the height of the building and how its appearance could be mitigated. And the last item is 4.4, addressed testimony and noise, I was looking for additional information. The applicant provided that during their testimony earlier this evening. So with those five comments throughout this report, those were the only additional items I had wanted to raise beyond what your previous planner had done in his report. So with that, that concludes my testimony, but of course I'm also available for questions from the board and public.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
David, do you have any questions.
MR. SCHREIBER: No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you say the architecture percepts the height that they uses, elimination of unnecessary dormers? 
How does the applicant feel about that? 
MR. WELLS:  I   
MS. McMANUS: I don't want to put words in your mouth.
MR. WELLS: Well, MR. LOVENTHAL can elaborate but my point was that Mr. Appel did actually address all of that issue. And the relevant point is we are conforming to height. What she's doing is making a suggestion    her aesthetic suggestion on how it could appear to be less. Mr. Appel testified that    it's been a while, but I think even this board remembers extensively on how he had worked to accomplish that and we stand with his testimony at this point.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So you're reluctant to consider that, is that   
MR. WELLS:  That would be right.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:    generally   
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right.
MR. LOVENTHAL:  If there were any suggestions that she had I certainly would review them with the architect, but we think that from an architectural perspective that the    that we    the site the    the height perception balances with the architectural style. But we would certainly listen and if she marked up a set of plans I would bring it back to the architect, there might be some suggestions we can do that.
MR. WELLS:  If you look at the plans, there's practically no project anywhere that's made more effort to try to create different sight lines and so forth in terms of working on that height issue. So we think we've got it done. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  MAYOR KNUDSEN? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.
So I    commenting on that tandem parking, but just to go through that design piece, do you want to just walk through that 190, I think, 90(c) is that what you...
MS. McMANUS: On the tandem parking item? Mayor, do you mean the compliance issues associated with the tandem parking? Is that what you're... 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  The code that you cited is 190(c)   
MS. McMANUS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:   which is unobstructed at all times   
MS. McMANUS: Yes, it requires all parking areas and structures to have an    I can provide a quote if necessary, but it essentially requires that all parking spaces have unobstructed access at all times and so that is the municipality's ordinance that    although it doesn't specifically address stadium parking.  It doesn't say those words, but that requirement conflicts with    appears to conflict with the tandem parking in that the first space, the parked in parking space, that space, does not have that unobstructed access because, of course, it's surrounded on all sides by parking or perhaps the parking structure.
MR. WELLS: Which is why we've got it for an exception to the site plan ordinance on that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Francis, do you have any questions? 
MS. BARTO: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm okay for now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie? 
MS. PATIRE:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Isabella? 
MS. ALTANO:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I have no questions. 
Applicant have any questions? 
MR. WELLS: I do not. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone from the public have questions? Questions? 
(No response.) 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That finishes   
MR. WELLS:  Officially done.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. 
MR. WELLS: Go on vacation or whatever, or going to another hearing.
MS. McMANUS: Thank you very much. Sorry about that. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. So this application will be carried the June 20th, 2017, without further notice, and the consent of the applicant?  
MR. WELLS: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: And no prejudice to the board. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And no prejudice to the board. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wells. Thank you for being organized. 
MR. WELLS: See you on June 20th. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Wells. (Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted: 10:44 p.m.)

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for June 7, 2016 and June 21, 2016 were approved as written.

Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
      

Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: August 7, 2018

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of February 7, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Following members were present: Mr. Joel, MAYOR KNUDSEN, Joel Torielli, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, and Debbie Patire. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Blais Brancheau; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli reported none was received.

Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01- Pubic Hearing continued from November 15, 2016 - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right.  Our next item will be the Ridgewood/Dayton preliminary and final   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I apologize, Chairman. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  We got to talk about when we were at the Village Council the ordinance or is that after the fact? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: What, the referral? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, that will be after.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Got it.  Sorry.  I apologize.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  The next item will be the Ridgewood/Dayton Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 S. Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01.  Public hearing continued from November 15th. 
Mr. WELLS is the attorney who will be presenting on this.  This matter was previously heard, where we heard testimony from the engineer, Alexander Lapatka, and from the architect, Laurence Appel. They were questioned, and we're moving on to our next witness.
Mr. WELLS, will you please proceed.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  It's always a pleasure to be back here. As you know and as your Chairman just announced, this is a continued hearing. We began in September. We had two hearings then.  And then we were with you in November. And as your Chairman also pointed out to you or reminded you, we have had extensive testimony by the architect and the engineer.  I will tell you that you can see we have a court reporter here this evening. We had a court reporter previously. So we do have transcripts, and those have been delivered to Michael. If anybody was not in attendance, because I know there was not full attendance at the last meeting and can read the transcript, we certainly encourage you to do that. I want to share with you just, you know, it's always a little bit tricky to come back into a matter when it's been off a little while. I'm going to give you a copy of our exhibit list that we prepared in one second. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: 1 through 8, I believe that you had? 
MR. WELLS: It's actually one through A 12, then there's several for the town, and then we have a few more tonight. It will just make things a little more organized. Okay. That exhibit list will remind you, possibly, of 1 through 8, which we presented through the testimony of the architect, and then 9 through 12, which were Mr. Lapatka's at the last hearing.  In any event, we have those exhibits and they can be available, if anybody would like to see them.  This evening, there's several more exhibits we intend to introduce. We'll do that when the time comes.
Testimony: We have yet to hear the testimony of our planner, Art Bernard, and that's who I'm going to call next.  He is, as he will, when we do his background, you will understand that not only is he a Professional Planner but he has a strong background as the former director of the Council on Affordable Housing.  So, in addition to the fact that he will explain to you, to the extent necessary, the affordable housing component of this application, there really isn't much that we need to do as a matter of our record to do that, but I commend to you, if you have questions about COAH and the Mt. Laurel process, I'm not sure even he can answer because it's become kind of a mystery in our state, MR. BRANCHEAU is laughing, but this is an unusual opportunity, if you have a question that's even a little bit off the point, you can ask them of him, and he will obviously do our planning testimony, not only with respect to affordable housing but also with respect to the variance we've requested.  Then we would call Mr. Disario, he is with Langan Engineering, he's a traffic engineer. You have previously received a copy of his full report, and he will be discussing traffic. And then finally, during the first couple hearings several operational questions came up, and you will recollect that whenever that happened, I would tell you that Mr. Leventhal (phonetic), who is the project manager, the principal of our client and is running this project, will be in a position to answer those questions. So we'll let him wrap up and answer any questions that the board may have. We did make a submission, and I won't spend anytime on it now, a little later if we need to, with respect to our legal or my legal opinion with respect to the traffic matters that are before you. And I saw MR. MARTIN's firm also prepared a memorandum on that subject.  In essence, what we are suggesting to you very strongly, and I believe with good legal support, that the only real matter that this board has jurisdiction over is the point of egress and access to the site.  That is clearly within your purview to consider.  And the board actually does not, under case law, have a right to deny this application because of a feeling about congestion of traffic elsewhere in the village. That's a zoning matter, not a matter for site plan approval.  And then finally the other issue that I raised in the memo is the question that came up at the last hearing with respect to could we be held responsible to make improvements elsewhere, not necessarily right in front of our site, and pay some pro rata share.  And in reality, yes, we could, but there needs to be a showing that those improvements are both reasonable and necessary and necessitated and required by this project.  And then and only then you try to assess, first the village would have to tell us what it thought it wanted to do in the way of improvement, and then we'd have to assess what the share would be of this project. And the reason I don't think it's an appropriate concern, although I'm going to discuss it anyway because you've raised it, is because, as Mr. Disario will tell you, we believe the impact that it would have on any of those improvements is very small, de minimis in fact; therefore, not really appropriate even to have had to bring it up, but we brought it up, and if we went down that road, the pro rata share, because of the effect that it would have on, say, an intersection, on a road that even this close to the project, would be so small as the pro rata share would be very, very small. So that will come out in testimony, but those are the legal aspects that we guided our experts with, and hopefully we can move through that.  So unless there's questions   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can we talk about that a little bit?  Is that possible? 
MR. WELLS:  Sure.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, I read your document, your letter as well.  So, here's my question, and I don't know how the law reads, and, Chris, you might be able to help with this as well, when you're looking at site plans, the concern I have is that the site plan is being looked at in isolation. And I don't know whether or not the case law you're citing is looking at site plans in isolation, as opposed to looking at various site plans in aggregate.  So, my concern is your site plan and other site plans that are going to be developed potentially at around the same time, or, now, in aggregate, how that affects the downtown, not necessarily yours, but the aggregate effect of all of those site plans together.  And I'm not sure of the case law, and I think maybe you can help me with this a little bit, whether the case law actually looks at site plans in isolation or does it    and I don't know if there is any case law around.
MR. WELLS: I can answer your question.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Site plans in aggregate.
MR. WELLS: I'll answer, and MR. MARTIN can certainly chime in, because basically he cited the same case law we did and basically came to the same conclusions. It was exactly the dialogue that I was having with you and MR. BRANCHEAU that prompted me to right a legal memo on it, and the cases absolutely deal with this kind of situation, and what they stand for is the proposition that when you consider a site plan, that is what you consider, a single site. So that concept that you're talking about of considering sites in the aggregate, that's not a site plan approval, that's more like a zoning issue, and in this case would go more to whether the Planning Board as part of its master plan process or its road process, whatever it is, a larger board would make bigger decisions in terms of the master plan and then ultimately zoning.  So, for example, even in the context of this matter,the time to bring up those considerations, and they were brought up extensively, would be when the decision was made to zone this property and one, quite frankly, when they were discussed at that time, it was determined through a lot of expert testimony that this particular zoning created less traffic than other zoning that was even permitted then.  But that's off the point and all of that whole argument is not appropriate at this juncture. So that even if you were to determine that there were terrible problems all over the village with parking, and even though our witness will testify, and I believe that Mr. Jahr will confirm that we are not providing much traffic to add to that problem, but if you decide that it was, the case law says that's not the basis for you to deny, that's not appropriate, you consider this single site. 
If I mischaracterized it, MR. MARTIN, you can certainly correct me.
MR. MARTIN: No. 
The hardest part of the job for me over 26 years in terms of litigating is doing the other guy's case for him.  In terms of land use, it's the same thing.  So Mr. WELLS wrote a very thoughtful piece, and I submitted my position on it as well.  Most of the cases, we're all in agreement on. We diverge a little bit as to the interpretation.  One of the interpretations was based significantly on one of the ordinances of the Village of Ridgewood. Quite frankly, I was a little concerned, because ordinances in any community somewhat are ambiguous. In this instance, I have to credit our planner, an excellent job in terms of off site improvements and what's required. It really lays it out crystal clear. 
So Mr. WELLS may have a position that you cannot deny an application due to off tract activities, but certainly if the board is inclined to approve the application, there are numerous conditions that can be addressed based on the evidence presented as to whether the developer is required to do.  So part of Mr. WELLS' job now is to put in evidence that he believes is appropriate, and there's also been traffic studies and other planning documents by our planner that show different comments, and that's for the board to decide upon.  So the law, pretty much we agree upon. What the requirements of the developer to go forward with the site plan may not be the death knell denial, but if there are conditions in the hypothetical site plan that aren't followed, the site can't go forward permanent.  So there are issues that need to be sifted out.
MR. WELLS:  Let me go back on that, because I think we had agreement with respect to site plan and inability to deny.  I disagree with MR. MARTIN, and his written memorandum actually seems to agree more with me, so I disagree with what he just said.  In reality, it is absolutely correct, if a community such as the village has an ordinance that allows you to require off site improvements, and you do have that, although it is well drafted, it doesn't have certain provisions, for example, one that would allow setting up of an escrow fund, the TID, and those kinds of things, they're not in there, but if you could get around that problem, what the case law also says, though, and that's the part that I think MR. MARTIN didn't fully explain, is, you can require change or a pro rata share on improvements off the site.  In this case, let's say hypothetically somebody wanted to put a light at the corner of Broad Street and E. Ridgewood Avenue.  You know, I've heard that discussed over the years before and I've heard many people say it doesn't make sense, but assuming for the moment that this board, the village council, your expert said we think there should be a light there, in order to ask this particular applicant for a pro rata share, then you have to establish that there's a connection between putting that light there, a reasonable necessity tied into the exact thing that we did that would require us to prove a pro rata share.  That's the legal requirement.
MR. MARTIN: Let me stop you there. I agree with the pro rata share and I agree with the nexus, it just comes down to our evidence, I believe.
MR. WELLS:  So we're good on that so far. 
Now, there's one last piece, and that's what I'm trying to advance, and that is, after you do all that, if that happens, the way you establish pro rata share is basically number of cars.  So you say, okay, how many cars will this project put into the area that's now being improved?  So if the improvement, I gave you a hypothetical in my letter, it costs $300,000.00 to do the improvement, whatever it is, road widening, light, whatever, now you assess how much of it is our responsibility, and we'll give you testimony, Mr. Jahr will give counter testimony, if he has it, that it's very small, really small.  So then the issue becomes, okay, let's say hypothetically, and I gave you that hypothetical that our effect on this was three percent, and I don't even think it's that high, but if it was and it's a $10,000.00 pro rata share, then it becomes the issue, in order to ask us to do that, the village has to say we're making that improvement, we're going to spend the $300,000.00, and, by the way, we want your $10,000.00.  And if you do that, we're onboard.  And to be honest with you, I have to speak for my client, he's not there, if that happens, you want us to spend $300,000.00 and it turns out we are 3 percent responsibility, is $10,000.00 for us, we'll write the check.  But there's a lot of steps that have to happen in there:  You have to want to do it, you have to decide to do it.  We'll get past the fact that there is nothing in the ordinance that allows us to put the $10,000.00 in there now and see if it happens later on.  But, you know, so that's my reading of the law.  So it's:  Can't deny, pro rata share, if there's a connection, a nexus, if you will, and then finally how much is our pro rata share, and that ties into how much traffic do we generate on our site versus all the traffic that goes through that particular location.
MR. MARTIN:  And whether it's more substantial or de minimis, I think that's subject to the evidence that is presented.
MR. WELLS:  Well, sure. And when I'm arguing legally, I attach to that the testimony of Mr. Disario, who is going to testify live right now, where he is going to basically tell you that we generate, you know, a very, very small amount of cars that affect those intersections.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Does our ordinance Section D(1), does that allow us to consider what is projected to be built there, in addition to anything you're presenting to us today?  I wonder if that's what Jeff is asking? It allows for us to consider projected projects as well, the projected traffic? I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.
MR. WELLS:  Whether or not it does, and I'm not sure if it does, we gave it to you, in other words, we gave you the built conditions.  In other words, Mr. Disario has analyzed it every which way. The only way that we basically said didn't make any sense, Mr. Jahr suggested was, he wanted us to consider, based on the parking garage that was proposed and then ultimately turned down, and we said that doesn't make any sense.  In other words, it's one thing to talk about building future conditions based on what we think may happen, but it's another thing to, you know    so that was the only one that we didn't throw into the mix, if you will.  Mr. Disario will explain it to you.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  You're just talking about traffic, but, I mean, there are other issues too potentially that probably need to be thought out, like public safety, like parking, are two other issues   
MR. WELLS:  Parking on the site? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Parking downtown in general, and what your building generates in excess of the parking capacity you have.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  I can address that too. Mr. Disario will give you testimony, but there you have some constraints, if you will, as well, because what your ordinance does is adopts the state requirements, what we call "RSIS," and essentially says that there's a calculation about how much parking would be required for this kind of a building. It actually has a lot of flexibility and says you can actually average down and all the rest of it.  We didn't do that.  We didn't average down.  We didn't use any exceptional circumstances.  And all our legal requirement is to conform to that, because basically what they say is we're imposing that standard, we're saying that's the right standard, and in a sense taking away the discretion of the board to say, oh, we think you should provide more parking than that.  If we meet that requirement, we have no variance, we're conforming, it's really, you know, if your opinion is RSIS is wrong, take it up with the state legislature, not with us, would be my position.
MS. PATIRE:  I have a question on that. Chris, maybe you can answer. Does that RSIS, is it for residents, people who live there, what about guests? 
MR. WELLS:  What about guests? 
MS. PATIRE:  So is that calculated, so you're going to have 50 guests one night? 
MR. WELLS:  It's all in there.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It is factored into there.
MS. PATIRE:  It is factored in there? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  Any other questions of me or should I call MR. BERNARD? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, you can proceed.
MR. WELLS:  So we're going to switch, we're done doing traffic here a little bit, but we're going to switch back to planning and I'm going to call MR. BERNARD at this point.
MR. BERNARD:  I wonder with the board, if it's okay if I sit there?
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BERNARD, will you raise right hand. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. BERNARD:  I do.
A R T  B E R N A R D, 77 North Union Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: Just for the record your full name and your title and your business address.
MR. BERNARD: My name is Art Bernard. I'm the managing member of my own firm, which is Art Bernard and Associates. My business address is 77 North Union Street, Lambertville, New Jersey.
DIRECT VOIR DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. MR. MARTIN got you started.  If you would, MR. BERNARD, could you continue to describe for the board your basic credentials to testify before the board. 
A. Sure.  I have a master's in city regional planning from Rutgers University. I'm a licensed Professional Planner with over 40 years of experience in land use planning and affordable housing. 
For eight and a half of those years, I served on the Council On Affordable Housing, first as its deputy director, then as its executive director. And in both those capacities, I developed and supervised COAH's entire work program and worked directly with the board on all of its rule making. I wrote the first and second round rules that the Supreme Court has referred to in its recent Mt. Laurel decisions with regard to after the demise of COAH. Since leaving COAH in 1994, I've served as the consultant for some 25 municipalities in various capacities representing boards like yours and Planning Boards on subdivisions, site plan reviews, in preparing ordinance and master plan documents and redevelopment plans.  In many of those towns, I served solely as their affordable housing consultant and wrote a number of housing elements that received approval from both COAH and the courts.  I've represented over the last 20 years as a consultant private sector clients all over the state before local boards and in Superior Court. I've represented the Superior Court as a special master in Mt. Laurel matters in six cases. 
Over the last 20 years, I've represented the New Jersey Builders Association as its affordable housing consultant. I've recently testified in Middlesex County Fair Share case for builder's remedy plaintiff who has received a builder's remedy.  I'm scheduled to testify in a series of other Fair Share trials in the other counties, as they proceed.
Q. I've learned from practice not to offer him as an expert until MR. MARTIN gets his chance, but that's pretty thorough. Is there anything further you wanted to voir dire of this witness? 
CROSS VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARTIN: 
Q. MR. BERNARD, recently were you the Superior Court consultant for Judge Troncone down in Ocean County?
A. I was not a consultant for Judge Troncone, I was scheduled to testify in a case before it settled.
Q. And then the one in Middlesex, was that the one with Judge Wilson?
A. Yes. 
And right now I'm scheduled to testify at the one that Judge Jacobson is conducting down in Mercer County.
Q. Professional Planner?
A. Yes.
Q. I heard your expertise in terms of affordable housing as a consultant. 
Any other designations, besides Professional Planner? 
A. That's it.
Q. And currently in good standing and in New Jersey, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Any other licensures in any other states? 
A. No, most states don't have planning licensing requirements.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. WELLS, are you going to offer MR. BERNARD as a Professional Planner? 
MR. WELLS: I am indeed.
MR. MARTIN: So allowed before this board.
Go ahead.
MR. WELLS: Okay.  Good.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. MR. BERNARD, if you would, why don't you begin by telling the board what you've done in the way of preparation for your testimony here this evening. 
A. Sure.  Well, there's a number of documents that I reviewed, including MR. BRANCHEAU's 2014 land use amendment regarding the site.  I also reviewed subsequent land use plan amendments, December 2015 land use and plan amendment, and the ordinances that went in place after that land use amendment were Ordinances 34 89 and 34 93, that established the AH 2 zone for this site.  I've also reviewed your 2016 Housing Element, your Steep Slope Ordinance. I've reviewed the applicant's plans for the property, and MR. BRANCHEAU's September 6, 2016 review of that application. I've reviewed the Municipal Land Use Law, and I've been out to the site on several occasions.
Q. Well, you've certainly done everything we've asked you to do and more. 
Might be the thing that you could do to start, especially because we talked about Mt. Laurel and we're going to take you through that in a little bit, could you explain to them what an "inclusionary development" is, because that is what we're proposing to do here.
A. Sure.  An inclusionary development is a community that includes a mix of market housing and low and moderate-income housing, typically for rentals.  The percentage of low and moderate-income housing mix is 15 percent of the total housing units within the community.  Now, in terms of, I think it's important, perhaps not for the board, you've had some experience with this, but for members of the public to understand what low and moderate income housing is.  It's housing that's affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the median income for a given housing region.  Typically, the state regulations require the low and moderate housing to be affordable to households earning anywhere from 30 to 80 percent of the median income.  Now, median income changes a little bit, depending on what region you're in.  Bergen County is in a region with Passaic and Hudson and Sussex counties. And the median income, that not only changes by region, but it also is a function of household size.  So, I'm going to give you an example of a household size of two.  The reason I've chosen a household size of two is because most of the households in New Jersey are smaller households. We live in a state where 56 percent or more now of all New Jersey's households are 1 and 2 person households, and that two thirds of New Jersey's households do not have any school aged children.  But, for a two person household in Bergen County, a person can qualify for this housing and the housing is geared to be affordable to households that range anywhere from $20,000.00 per year to say 54, $55,000.00 per year.  So what I'd like the public to understand is that when we're talking about low  and moderate income households, we're not talking about people we don't know, we're talking about a large segment of the population, it's about 40 percent of all households in New Jersey. The households that qualify span a variety of professions, including but not limited to teachers and nurses and social workers and paralegals and firefighters. We're talking about young people starting out and older people on fixed incomes. They're people that work, but are often finding affordable housing a challenge because of the lack of multifamily housing that is built in the region and in the state's towns. In order to get an affordable unit, the low  and moderate income households need to go through credit checks and criminal checks, just like any other tenant.  So, really, there's no reason to think that these people wouldn't be an asset, not only to the community of garden homes it is proposing, but to Ridgewood as well.
Q.MR. BERNARD, I think you and I know the answer to this, but let's just make sure we put it in the record.  Is this government subsidized housing, because people tend to ask that question?
A. No. 
The idea that the New Jersey Supreme Court established years ago is that the developer of a community would receive an increase in density or a density bonus of market units so that it could afford to offer the affordable units at affordable rents.
Q. Mr. Leventhal will explain it a little bit more, but there's already been testimony that the affordable units would be intermixed among the market units, there might be some slight differences in some of the finishes, but other than that, it would be basically very similar.
Can you tell us, is that appropriate, is that the way it should be done? 
A. I don't know that there's one way that it should be done.  I think a lot of people think that's a preferable way than isolating low  and moderate income households into one section of the community.  Clearly the way it's being proposed here is certainly the way that I think is preferable.  I think, while we're talking about the low and moderate income housing and the low  and moderate income households, I'd like to refer to MR. BRANCHEAU's September 2016 review.  It does include a section (c) that relates to affordable housing.  There are two paragraphs, starting at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5.  They're short.  Paragraph one asks for a deed restriction. Paragraph two asks the applicant to comply with the borough's affordable housing requirements, and he cites specific sections of your ordinance.  This is all clearly appropriate, and we will comply.
Q. Good. 
Does the municipality have an obligation, obviously MR. BRANCHEAU is talking about what we talked about before, the basic affordable housing requirement and the final numbers of which have not been established for the village, but assuming in addition to building affordable housing at a certain number within the village, does it have any other additional obligations tied into this housing, once it is built by a developer such as this? A. Well, it starts even before the housing is built.  The zoning, based on the Mt. Laurel decision, should eliminate any unnecessary cost generating standards, and that gets to the colloquy the board and Mr. WELLS had in terms of what kind of traffic improvements one could impose.
After that, the municipality is obligated to expedite the review of the application, like we're doing now.  And then beyond that, there are state regulations that really cover what's expected of the board, and I would cite, maybe for MR. MARTIN's convenience, N.J.A.C. 5:93 10, which deals with the board's review.  And, again, it talks about the need to expedite the review of the inclusionary development, but then it goes on to talk about the fact that inclusionary developments have gone through a very public process before receiving the zoning. And, therefore, the focus of the review, and, again, this is more for the public than for the board, is not whether the property is appropriately zoned, but, instead, municipalities are expected to again eliminate unnecessary requirements and cooperate in granting reasonable variances or reasonable relief from the ordinances that's necessary.
Q. I was going to say, moving from this sort of the big picture to this specific site, the board's heard a little bit about this before, but if you could, you said you reviewed the master plan documents and the housing element and so forth.  Could you tell us about this particular property in terms of how it's zoned and what the village appears to be trying to accomplish by that zoning? 
A. Well, this project has gone through a very public process.  I mean, in looking through the trail, it looks like it started sometime in 2013.  I gathered that from reading MR. BRANCHEAU's 2014 memo that led to a Land Use Plan Amendment in 2015; the creation of the AH 2 zone in April of 2016; and the inclusion of this site as part of your response to your affordable housing obligation in your 2016 Housing Element.  And, as a result of that public process, the site has been placed in your AH 2 zone that permits multifamily housing at a density of 35 units per acre and requires that 15 percent of the housing be set aside for low and moderate income housing. 
And the ordinance is very specific in terms of what the village was trying to accomplish.  It was trying to address the needs of empty nesters, it was trying to address the needs of young couples, again, those smaller households that we've been talking about.  And it was also, of course, trying to address the need for low and moderate income housing. It was also trying to promote mass transit in the downtown area and to support the commercial uses in the downtown area.
Q. I'm going to move a little bit away from Mt. Laurel and ask you, if you would, MR. BERNARD, there has been some testimony by the engineers in terms of the actual site and so forth, can you, for the planning testimony, review for the board what relief the applicant is requiring from the village's ordinance?
A. Well, the relief we may need is relief from what I'll call the Steep Slope Ordinance or disturbing a slope in excess of 20 percent. 
Now, my opinion is we really don't need it, because my reading of the ordinance is that the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the natural topography and the natural drainage conditions. 
But I think everyone agrees that the slope in question, I think you saw it in Exhibit 12 that the applicant handed out last time, everyone agrees that this is a man made slope, it's not a natural slope, that this is a slope that was put in when the railroad was put in.  So, in my opinion, I don't think we need the relief. 
Q. I want to stop you here, because I happen to agree with your opinion, but MR. BRANCHEAU doesn't, and since he wrote the report and we called it off as a variance, can you tell us, if this is a variance, which it doesn't matter whether you and I don't agree for the moment, do you believe this variance would be justified?
A. Oh, yeah, I think the variance should be granted based on the (c)(2) criteria.
Q. Take us through that a little bit, because I would like to put that into the record in case anybody else interprets this as a necessary variance. 
A. I will, but I wonder, see, when I was reviewing this, my first sense was that we didn't need the variance relief from the ordinance.  And then my sense was that even if we do, that there are exceptions that are built into the ordinance that we would probably qualify for.
Q. That's true.  Take us through all of that, please. 
A. So, I mean, the first exception, which is section (b)(1), you get exception from the Steep Slope Ordinance for redevelopment within the limits of impervious surfaces that were in effect    and the way I'm reading the ordinance is that were in effect at the time the ordinance was adopted, and that's what the applicant is doing, is redeveloping the property within the limits of the existing impervious surfaces.  In fact, the applicant is reducing the impervious surfaces by 10,900 square feet.  And then the second way I think that we can get an exception from the ordinance is (b)(3), which gives an exception when the new disturbance necessary provides an environmental benefit, and it used as an example the remediation of a contaminated site. Now, in this case the environmental benefit is stabilizing the slope.  Right now that slope is not landscaped, it's kind of like an open sore, and then when it rains, the soil erodes and the stream gets the sedimentation from the erosion.  What this proposal is going to do is it's going to stabilize that slope with landscaping and a relatively short retaining wall.  So our proposal is going to do what your ordinance really wants done, it's going to stabilize the slope, there will be less erosion, there will be less sedimentation, it will improve the aesthetics of the area.  So I think there's clearly an environmental benefit.  So, if the board and MR. BRANCHEAU disagrees with me in terms of whether we need relief from the ordinance, and I get that, and if the board shares that opinion, I think the exception is clearly warranted.  If your planner and you disagree with that, then we can go to the relief.  And what I'd like to do for you now is to go through the (c)(2) criteria.  (C)(2) variances are not the hardship variances.  These are the variances that can be granted when the proposal advances purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law and the benefits of the proposal substantially outweigh any detriments associated with granting the relief. And in weighing the benefits, the Appellate Division in the case in South Plainfield, called Pullen v. South Plainfield, advised the boards that they should consider the benefits of the entire proposal and not just the benefits of the specific relief.  And in this case, the benefits of the entire proposal include the production of affordable housing, which not only provides the housing but helps the borough meet its affordable housing obligation.  The benefits also include housing for the empty nesters and the young adults, which are the two most dominant growing demographic groups in New Jersey and the groups that the ordinance was designed to assist. The benefits also include promoting the bus and rail transit in the area.  It helps support the businesses in the commercial zone.  The benefits also include replacing these vacant buildings and an unlandscaped parking lot with a beautiful new building.  And, you know, this is exactly the type of development that the state plan tries to promote, high density residential development in orientation to a downtown area that can promote this mixed use concept that the state plan is trying to promote.  So that, in my view, is another benefit.  In terms of the benefits of granting the relief, the relief is beneficial because the applicant is stabilizing the slope with a retaining wall and landscaping, and actually satisfying the purpose of the ordinance by limiting erosion and minimizing sedimentation.  So those are the benefits that I see.  Now, remember, part of the criteria for the (c)(2) variance, it has to advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law.  And based on what I just told you, and the fact that based on what I just told you and what I will tell you, I would conclude that this proposal benefits about five purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, including purpose A, which is related to the appropriate use of land; purpose E, which is related to encouraging appropriate population densities; and purpose G, which is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for diversity of housing.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BERNARD, what's the last one, A, E, and what? 
THE WITNESS:  G.
MR. WELLS:  G. 
THE WITNESS: (Continuing)  Now I say that this is an appropriate use of land not only because it's adjacent to the downtown and adjacent to mass transit, but the use is a permitted use in the zone.  In other words, the governing body has already decided that this is an appropriate use for the zone.  Similarly, the governing body has already decided that the density is appropriate for the location.  The location is great, given that the site is so close to the downtown and close to the train station.  And, frankly, in my view, it's just good planning to provide high density housing adjacent to the downtown train station and bus service. Also, since this lovely building is going to take the place of these vacant buildings and the parking lot, I think that the proposal advances purpose I, which is to promote a desirable visual environment.  And, again, since as I said before, it advances the goals of the state plan by promoting higher density residential development in a downtown area near public transportation, it advances purpose D of the Municipal Land Use Law that relates to consistency with the state plan.  Now, that would be what I call the positive criteria for the (c)(2) variance, but there's another side to it.  I have to address what are called the negative criteria.  So the first part of that is:  What's the impact on the public good? And I see no detriment to the public good at all.  Certainly, no negative impact to the neighbors to stabilizing the steep slope.  And in terms of the greater public good, in terms of the environmental benefit, there's clearly an environmental benefit to what the applicant is doing, because it's going to limit erosion and soil sedimentation of the streams. So that brings me to the impact on the zone plan.  And, again, I see nothing but positive things from this proposal. First of all, the stabilization of the slope is consistent with the goal of your Steep Slope Ordinance.  The proposal is consistent with your housing element and your land use element.  The land use element designates this site for this use.  The housing element designates this site as part of their response to your affordable housing obligation.  And in terms of the bigger picture with the ordinance, it is a permitted use, it is a permitted density.  The proposal is for affordable housing, and I always think that the zone plan of a community is actually strengthened when you approve an inclusionary development, because it makes you less vulnerable to exclusionary zoning litigation. So, in summary, I find that this proposal has a variety of benefits, so I conclude that there are benefits associated with the variance relief, but it's really, what the applicant is doing is complying with the spirit of your Steep Slope Ordinance.  I find that the proposal advances multiple purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, and that the variance relief does not create a substantial detriment to either the public good or to the zone plan.  So I find that the benefits of the proposal substantially outweigh any detriments associated with granting the relief and would really urge the board to grant the relief that's requested tonight.
MR. WELLS:  Thank you, MR. BERNARD. 
I told the board at previous hearings that I intended to make this bulletproof, and this is the variance on which we need to put in the legal requirements, because, as you know, MR. BERNARD shares my opinion that it wasn't even a variance, and certainly the exceptions apply.  But now you've had thorough testimony with respect to how it meets the (c)(2) criteria. I open him up for questions that anybody else might have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure. 
Dave, any questions? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  MAYOR KNUDSEN? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Just a question.  You indicated that in the state plan, this was identified as a mixed use concept, and I just wanted to ask you to elaborate on how this is a mixed use concept or did you not mean necessarily this site?
THE WITNESS:  I didn't mean mixed use on the site, I meant the overall location is a mixed use location, mixed use area.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Because you said "site," so I just wanted to be clear    I'm sorry, you said the location is a mixed use location, so I just want to be clear on that.  Did the state plan identify it as a mixed use site or in general? 
THE WITNESS:  Just in general.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me one minute.
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You can nod your head back there any way you want, but I'm just trying to pay attention to the testimony of your expert.  So it would be helpful if we didn't have antics from back there. 
Go ahead.  I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS:  The state plan endorses mixed use areas. 
There's probably a better way to say it, but what they endorse is exactly what's going on here, where you're having higher density housing in close proximity near/above stores, close to mass transit, they are trying to endorse pedestrian activity.  Their goals are really very similar to the goals that are articulated in Ordinance 34 89, in terms of trying to increase pedestrian activity in the downtown by putting more people there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  All right.  I might come back for a further question, but I'm good for now.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Sure. 
Debbie, did you have any questions? 
MS. PATIRE:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Not right now.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Isabella? 
MS. ALTANO:  Just a question as to the stabilization of a man made slope.  That's more of a civil engineering question.  I'm just really concerned about the water runoff and how that is going to be implemented as far as the site.
MR. WELLS:  I know you weren't here at the last hearing, but there was extensive testimony on it.  If you do get a chance to review the transcript, the engineer explained that.
MS. ALTANO:  Right, I do have the transcript and I did read it, but I was   
MR. WELLS:  If you want, we can bring the engineer back and he can redress that, but that's really not a planning question.
MS. ALTANO:  That's fine.
MR. WELLS:  It's a fair question.
MS. ALTANO:  I just want to make sure that's done properly. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  No questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I have no questions. 
Blais, do you have any questions? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Just one. 
I wonder if MR. BERNARD was going to testify at all concerning (b)(3), the stacked parking? 
THE WITNESS:  No, I thought that Mr. Lapatka did that.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I know he did, but I didn't know if you had anything to add? 
THE WITNESS:  No, I agree with what he said, I thought he put it well.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Then that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Chris?  :  Nothing.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Chris, do you have any questions? 
MR. MARTIN:  Maybe just for Tom. 
Is MR. BERNARD permitted, in terms of what you're offering him for in terms of the (c)(2) variances? 
MR. WELLS:  If you have other questions that you would like to ask him, yes, but I think his testimony speaks for itself, but what is the question you're asking? 
MR. MARTIN:  Just that, if that's the focus of this witness' testimony and those are his opinions, it basically is with the slope issue, is that fair to say? 
MR. WELLS:  Well, no, I'll ask him the specific question, if you want.  He obviously gave testimony with respect to Mt. Laurel or COAH and how this application is intended to meet the COAH requirements, and so he testified on that.  He testified with respect to this. 
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. And then I'll ask you the general question.  As a Professional Planner, having seen the overall application, which includes the variance, it's obviously a site plan application, do you have a professional opinion with respect to the appropriateness of this application and the actions the board should take on it? 
A. Well, yeah.  I mean, what I was trying to convey with my testimony was I was trying to help the board understand what a low and moderate housing application is, because you don't get it every day.  I was trying to convey the fact that it's kind of something a little special, because there is very powerful Supreme Court decision that kind of tells a board what they're expected to do.  I was trying to explain to the board how that Supreme Court mandate has been implemented through state regulations, so that the board kind of understood what its role was in reviewing an inclusionary development, which includes granting reasonable variances.  And then the last part of the testimony was designed to demonstrate how reasonable this variance would be.  I think that's the best way I can summarize it.
Q. Yes, although that is obviously what we asked you to testify about, but since MR. MARTIN has suggested there might be more for you to testify, I'm just asking you the blanket question:  As a person who's been around a lot of applications over the years as a Professional Planner, does this application as a whole seem to you to be reasonable and appropriate?
A. Oh, absolutely.
MR. WELLS:  Is there anything else you want him to testify to? 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BERNARD, are you offering any opinions as to the size of the actual improvement in terms of the number of units, any opinion one way or the other as to anything? 
MR. WELLS:  He hasn't been asked to.  It's not before the board too.
MR. MARTIN:  I'm just asking that question.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  The number of units are permitted.  So, yeah, I have an opinion about it.
MR. MARTIN:  You don't know how many current buildings in this particular zone are multifamily housing? 
THE WITNESS:  It doesn't matter.  In my view, it doesn't matter, it's a permitted use.  I'm not here for the use.
MR. MARTIN:  Can you answer my question? 
MR. WELLS:  No, I'm going to object to the question for the record.  It's not an appropriate question.  You can ask it, but I'm going to put an objection on the record.
MR. MARTIN:  Do you know how many buildings in this zone are multifamily housing at this point? 
If the answer is no, that's okay, I'm just asking.
THE WITNESS:  I'm not hesitating answering your question, I'm going to answer it fully.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  Go ahead.
THE WITNESS:  I don't, and the reason I don't is I'm not here for a use variance, I'm here for what I consider a very reasonable variance to a minor steep slope.
MR. MARTIN:  No further questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sue, do you have any other questions? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No.
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  I'm going to call our next witness, but   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  The public has the opportunity. 
Does anyone from the public want to ask questions of MR. BERNARD? 
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Seeing none, there's no one.
MR. WELLS:  Thank you, MR. BERNARD.
MS. PATIRE:  As far as the steep slope, and I know from a couple meetings ago, two meetings ago, they were talking about New Jersey Transit, has any of this been addressed with them on any impacts it may or may not have to the rail service or in your opinion are there any impacts? 
MR. WELLS:  That's probably a good lead into what I was just going to do.  That's again a question for the engineer.  He kind of testified at that other hearing, he's here, so when MR. BERNARD is done, I'm going to ask him to come back and ask him to answer Melanie's question and your question.
Thank you, MR. BERNARD.
Mr. Lapatka, you've actually been sworn.  There's actually two questions.  They can repeat them, if you want, or if you remember them.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Can you just use the microphone.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Just let the record reflect that he was previously sworn and you're still sworn.
MR. MARTIN:  And previously qualified.
Hi, Mr. Lapatka.
ALEXANDER J. LAPATKA, P.E.,
 Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MR. LAPATKA:  For the steep slope, we proposed to plant an evergreen hedge along part of it.  Okay.  It would be an upright yew, and the remainder will be topsoil and stabilized with ground veg.
MR. WELLS:  The second question that was just asked a minute ago was what implications this particular variance has with respect to the railroad, was there any involvement with the railroad?
MR. LAPATKA:  Well, the only impact would be a positive impact, and there would be less erosion from the steep slope onto the railroad property, after we're done with this property.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  Thank you. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Again, just for the record, has anyone talked to New Jersey Transit about it? 
MR. LAPATKA:  I have not.
MR. WELLS:  What we've done is given them a proper legal notice, which is all we need to do.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  At your last hearing you said they hadn't responded at all, and have they still not responded? 
MR. WELLS:  And that would be, quite frankly, normal.  If they were concerned, they do, but normally when they get notice, if they're not concerned, they don't, and that's the way it always is.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  They were notified certified mail or something, so you have receipt that actually somebody has received it? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes, and Mr. Cafarelli has copies of our receipts to indicate that they were notified.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  All right.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Does anyone from the public have questions? 
(No response.) 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  Thank you, Mr. Lapatka. 
Next is Mr. Disario.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  You want to swear him in? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask one other question about the steep slope.
MR. WELLS:  We can do that.
MR. LAPATKA:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Is any of that, to your knowledge    you might not be able to answer this question    is any of that steep slope contaminated, oil, or in any way contaminated?
MR. LAPATKA:  Not to my knowledge, but I can't testify about that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You can't? 
MR. LAPATKA:  I didn't conduct studies.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So when will we hear testimony with respect to contamination of any soil? 
MR. WELLS:  We mentioned that at an earlier hearing.  There was a cleanup on this site historically, it wasn't done by this applicant, and Mr. Leventhal is prepared to tell you anything you want to know as far as he knows about that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I'd actually like to hear that, but I'd also like to see all the documentation on it as well.
MR. WELLS:  Again, under what relevance, or, you know, you have an engineer, you have a planner, they've all been through this.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You said he will speak about it.  Presumably, if he's going to speak about it, it would be beneficial to have any documentation on it.
MR. WELLS:  There is, as with everything, including the traffic things we've talked about, there's certain jurisdiction that the village and the Planning Board has, and certain jurisdictions that are other things.  The cleanup that was done on this site was not done by this particular applicant, it was done historically and it was done under the jurisdiction of the DEP.  That's the agency with the jurisdiction over it, and I don't know that there's anything before this board right now, although Mr. Leventhal can, I don't even really know about it because it's not terribly relevant to what we're doing here, but he can try to answer whatever questions you might have about this, you know, what was done on the site, you know, some years ago.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  We'll look forward to hearing that.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  Good.
MS. ALTANO:  I'm sorry.  To that point, before you go for the project, you have to make necessary applications? 
MR. WELLS:  And we did.
MS. ALTANO:  So that would yield, you know, whatever soil you have there.  Is that correct? 
MR. WELLS:  You can again, you can ask your engineer as well, but we've made a complete filing here and complied fully with everything we need to do.  Again, Mr. Leventhal can try to explain historically on this one, but I don't know anything that we're lacking that would be, you know, a real concern to the board.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Maybe, Chris, can you just give a comment.  I think it would be helpful.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. RUTISHAUSER, can you raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes, I do.
C H R I S T O P H E R    R U T I S H A U S E R,    having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And you remain a Professional Engineer for the Village of Ridgewood.  So stipulated, Mr. WELLS? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay.  Good evening.
As Mr. WELLS said, the present owner of the site has a responsibility for the site cleanup.  To do that, under the current regulations from the NJDEP, they have to hire an LSRP, a licensed site remediation professional.  The DEP, a number of years ago, outsourced the oversight of cleanup activities to the private sector, utilizing these regulated individuals, the LSRPs.  I don't recall seeing the final reports for the site, but they are required to submit them to us in the village, same as somebody submitting a stream encroachment permit application, a copy would come to the village, so it would be available for the public to look at it, if they are interested.
MS. ALTANO:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And as a condition of building there, they would have to show that it was   
MR. WELLS:  Clean, yes.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes.  There's also, Mr. WELLS knows probably much better than I do and so does MR. MARTIN, there are legal consequences for a purchaser if they were to purchase the property without having satisfactory documentation that the cleanup was done, they unfortunately would then have that liability, if it were to occur down the road. The cleanup rules are very strict in the sense that he who owns the property is responsible for the cleanup.
MR. MARTIN:  Even if he didn't generate the issue? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Correct.
MR. WELLS:  I think if you just wait a minute and hear Mr. Leventhal's testimony, I think can satisfy any concerns you have here.  If there is anything additional that wasn't submitted, which I don't believe is the case, or anything additional that needs to be cleared up, we'll certainly do that, but why don't we ask the person who actually knows about it to talk to the board and answer whatever question you may have.
MR. MARTIN:  Would you like to have Mr. Disario first or Mr. Leventhal? 
MR. WELLS:  Well, I'm going to use Mr. Disario now.  Mr. Leventhal is going to be last and answer whatever questions have kind of been left over, and this is one of those.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Disario, come on up.
Mr. Disario, raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. DISARIO:  Yes, I do.
D A N      D I S A R I O,     
 Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And please state your company name and your professional licensure.
MR. DISARIO:  Certainly.
For the record, Dan Disario, D I S A R I O.  I'm with the firm of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services Inc., headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.  I am the director of traffic and transportation services at my firm.  I'm a licensed Professional Engineer in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin.  I've appeared before boards throughout New Jersey, probably on the order of 300 to 400 municipalities in the State of New Jersey as an expert on traffic engineering.  In terms of education, just for the board's benefit, I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Temple University.  I also have a master of science in transportation engineering from NJIT.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  I'm going to let MR. MARTIN see if he wants to touch that up, but he seems pretty well qualified, again, to me.
CROSS VOIR DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MARTIN: 
Q. I see one of his designations is PTOE. 
What is that? 
A. That's a national certification.  It's issued by the Transportation Research Board, and it's a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer certification, and that's nationwide.
Q. And that's in good standing.  How long have you had that?
A. I've had that over 10 years.
Q. Do you have to renew it?
A. Yes, and actually it's coming up for renewal this May.
Q. This May?
A. Yes.
Q. So currently in good standing. 
Mr. Jahr, any questions or no?
(Mr. Jahr shakes his head.)
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Disario, the board accepts you as an engineer with a specialty as a professional traffic engineer.
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  I just want to make clear, that's certainly what we're offering him for, but Mr. Disario will be testifying certainly with respect to matters related to traffic, but as a related matter to traffic is parking and the circulation on the site.  He will be testifying with respect to that as well, and we offer him as an expert in that regard as well.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, I think that's part and parcel, but yes. 
THE WITNESS:  Thank you. 
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS: 
Q. Rather than take him through questions, I'm going to simply ask Mr. Disario to start by telling you what he's done in the way of preparation in understanding the site and to be prepared to testify before you, and then to go ahead and run through his conclusions with respect to the traffic and parking. I would suggest to you, he's also submitted a written report, copies of which you all already have or hopefully have, they were submitted to the board several weeks ago.  And I'll ask    he'll be undoubtedly referring to that report, but be giving full testimony with respect to all matters on traffic. So, if that's okay with you, Dan, I'm going to turn you loose and let you do your thing.
A. Sure.  Thank you.  And just so the record is clear, we originally prepared a traffic evaluation dated August 24, 2016. Subsequent to that original traffic evaluation, we've revised it, and the revised traffic evaluation is dated January 26, 2017.  That was submitted, and hopefully the board has a copy of that as part of your package. In addition to that, we prepared a response letter to the latest review letter that Mr. Jahr has prepared that had several comments in it.  Our response letter bears the date of January 26, 2017, and hopefully the board also has that in your packet.  So, from a technical perspective, in my mind, all issues that have been raised by way of comment through Mr. Jahr we have addressed and hopefully to your satisfaction.
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Disario, I just want to mark for identification, and maybe Mr. WELLS can help me   
MR. WELLS:  Yes, sir.
MR. MARTIN:     I have the August 24, 2016 report.  That was your first one, correct? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  May I mark that Disario 1? 
MR. WELLS:  Why don't we stick with the A designation, although we don't have that on our list, so maybe we'll make that A 17.
MR. MARTIN:  You're absolutely right.
MR. WELLS:  It had been previously submitted, it has actually been subject to revision now, but we can certainly mark it.
MR. MARTIN:  All right, that's A 17.
(Report dated 8/24/16 by D. Disario, PE, PTOE is marked as exhibit A 17 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN:  Then the next one I have is a similar bound document, but it says revised January 26, 2017, correct? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Can we make that A 18? 
MR. WELLS:  No, that's A 14, if you will, if we stick with the list we already have.
MR. MARTIN:  All right, A 14.
MR. WELLS:  Right.
(Revised Report dated 1/26/17 by D. Disario, PE, PTOE is marked as exhibit A 14 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN:  And then finally, because the date was just confusing me, January 26th is the same date, that's the response letter?
MR. WELL:  Correct. 
MR. MARTIN:  And is that already on the list? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  A 15? 
MR. WELLS:  A 15.
(Response letter dated 1/26/17 is marked as exhibit A 15 for identification.) 
MR. WELLS:  Since we've gotten into marking exhibits, we've also submitted to the board turning exhibits that was in your package.
MR. MARTIN:  A 16? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, they are part of the response letter, which is designated as exhibit A 15.
MR. WELLS:  Well, it's already within the response letter so we'll consider that marked already.
THE WITNESS:  As one exhibit.
MR. WELLS:  Fine.
MR. MARTIN:  The list is very helpful, I think.
MR. WELLS:  So we have A 14, A 15.  A 17 is the earlier report, which is not as relevant now, because it's really been revised and supplemented    not really supplemented but replaced with A 14.
MR. MARTIN:  It's historical content.
MR. WELLS:  Yes, we got it.
THE WITNESS:  Just so the record is clear and I'm clear as well, exhibit A 15 is our response letter dated January 26, 2017, and that includes the turning path exhibits as part of it.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:  So that one exhibit is encompassing our responses as well as those turning path exhibits.
(Turning path exhibits are marked as exhibit A 16 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN:  I'm going to mark that A 15 and A 16.
MR. WELLS:  Whichever, whatever you're comfortable with. 
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.  Go ahead.
BY MR. WELLS:
A. (Continuing)  So, you've heard from our planner and I think Art, no pun intended, artfully put forth to the board what I think is one of the aspects of this project that's very important from a traffic perspective, and, that is, this location and the proposed residential development is consistent with what I think the board is probably familiar with, a term that's used a lot in New Jersey, "Smart Growth."  And one of the tenets of smart growth is to plan development in a particular residential development in areas where there's opportunities to allow residents of future developments to not rely on their cars to get around.  This proposed site or this proposed development on this site, in my opinion is very ideal, as it's within walking distance of the train station.  So it's very conceivable that some of the residents, maybe a lot of the residents, if the board is inclined to approve this project and it was built, may not necessarily own a car and will rely on the train to get to and from work or to and from other areas. 
There's also a benefit of this site, because it's, for all intents and purposes, directly adjacent to your Central Business District. So, like my wife and I, we like to go out for dinner on Saturday nights, she's not going to cook, it's her night off, and I completely agree with that.  Where we live, we have to get into a car and drive to a restaurant every Saturday night.  This location, people that would live in this development, could actually walk to a bunch of great restaurants right in downtown Ridgewood.
So when you take a step back from a traffic perspective, this is exactly the type of planning and land use planning and project that you want to see as it relates to reducing the reliance on residents with their cars to get around. So these types of developments tend to generate less traffic than a similar sized development would out in a suburban location, because it avails or allows the residents of a development to walk to nearby locations, whether it's mass transit or shopping. Now, I've done a very detailed revised traffic evaluation, exhibit A 14. I would be happy to take you through in detail everything that I have done.  But what I will do, and you can ask me any questions you like, and if you want to ask me questions along the way, feel free, I think that's a better flow in terms of the presentation and the dialogue. When you look at traffic impacts from a particular development and traffic operations near that development, we, as traffic engineers, look at peak hours.  So, for a residential development, generally speaking, peak hours are one hour going in the morning between 7 and 9, which is your typical commuting time, and then one hour during the evening between 4 and 6, when people are coming back home from work.  One of the aspects of the revised traffic evaluation is estimating how much traffic this proposed development would generate.  Now, the board knows we are proposing or the applicant is proposing 93 apartments. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, which is my professional society, puts forth a publication called "Trip Generation Manual."  It's in its 9th edition.  And basically that manual collects data from sites around the country for different land uses and develops trip rates that traffic engineers use to estimate how much traffic a planned development would generate. Based on the ITE trip rate, this proposed 93 apartment development that's before you, during the weekday morning peak hour is estimated to generate nine vehicles coming in and 19 vehicles leaving.  So a total two way traffic in the weekday morning peak hour, one hour between 7 to 9 in the morning, of 28 trips.  During the weekday evening peak hour, so, again, one hour between 4 and 6 in the afternoon, based on the ITE trip rates, it's estimated that this proposed development will generate 21 vehicles coming in and 16 vehicles leaving, for a total two way volume of 37 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. Now, I would submit to you respectfully that that level of traffic generation is not significant.  There's a few publications and agencies and entities that really set forth some benchmarks as to whether or not a traffic study is needed or not.  Typically, it's recognized, if you have a development that generates 100 peak hour trips at any peak hour or less, it doesn't rise to the level or the need or warrants a formal traffic study, because that level of traffic generation is not significant. Now, I've taken you through how much we estimate this development is going to generate. Now, that traffic is going to be split, it's going to be split to the north along Broad Street and to the south along Broad Street.  We've conservatively assumed that about two thirds of the traffic would go to and from the north along Broad Street towards Ridgewood Avenue.  The other one third would go to the south, to and from the south along Broad Street.  So if you break down the traffic that we've estimated and assume two thirds are going to and from the north along Broad Street and one third is going to the south along Broad Street, to and from the south along Broad Street, and you look at that and you look at what that actually means and equates to, you're talking about the addition of one new vehicle, worst case in any peak hour in any direction, every four minutes.  So just think about that for a second.  So if you're going north on Broad past the site or if you're coming south on Broad from Ridgewood Avenue or similarly coming up Broad south of the site or going past the site on Broad heading south, the additional traffic from this development in either of those directions that I've cited would amount to about one new vehicle on average every four minutes. 
MR. MARTIN:  In each peak hour? 
THE WITNESS:  In each peak hour.  The worst case.  The absolute worst case.  You're talking one new vehicle every four minutes in any direction during peak hours.
BY MR. WELLS:
A. (Continuing)  Respectfully, I would submit to you that if you went out there today and you watched traffic along Broad Street or at the intersection of Broad and Ridgewood, and you were inclined to approve this application and the development as proposed was constructed, I would submit to you you would not be able to perceive a noticeable change in traffic operations because of the small amount of traffic that would be generated or is estimated to be generated by this proposed development. Now, those trip rates that ITE puts forth, they're, by and large, based on suburban development. As I stated to you earlier, I would anticipate that some of the residents, maybe a lot of the residents of this particular development, if it were built, are not going to have a huge reliance on automobiles and that will result in less traffic being generated, reasonably so, than what we've estimated.  Because it's conceivable, and I can tell you if I had an occasion to live up here, I have kids, but, you know, eventually I'm going to be an empty nester, and this is the exact kind of development in area that my wife and I are going to be looking to once we're empty nesters. Because I would love the opportunity to live somewhere where I can hop on a train and get to New York or I can walk down the street and go to a restaurant.  So I would anticipate that during the peak hours, that we've discussed or I've discussed, this development is actually probably going to generate less traffic. I think something that's also helpful, and I'm not going to do a direct comparison   
Q. I think you've made this clear, but I really want to hone in on it.  What you just said about you anticipate you get less, that is not built into that one new car for us, so it would be less than that?
A. Correct.  That is correct.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Can I remind you to please use the microphone, because it is hard to hear when you turn your back.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  Just so it's clear, but what Tom asked was whether my study has accounted for anybody using the train, and my answer is no.  My study is based on, my estimates of traffic generation are based on the published trip rates, and, those, by and large, are based on suburban developments where traffic counts were collected. So I would anticipate that this development would generate less traffic than what I've accounted for in my revised traffic evaluation. I think there's some historical context that's important to this discussion too.  Historically, this hasn't been a greenfield site with no development on it.  Previously, it was a car dealership.  Right now there's commuter parking that is taking place on the site.  So the site historically has generated traffic to the area.  The site currently is generating traffic to the area by way of the commuter parking activity.  So when you look at the estimates for this proposed development, it's not necessarily going to be a huge difference than what has historically occurred at this site when it was a car dealership or what's currently occurring at the site, that being commuter parking.  So this site has always generated traffic, and this new development, which is really a redevelopment, is going to generate traffic as well, but not to any significant extent where I believe you're going to be able to perceive any noticeable changes to area traffic operations. As it relates to the proposed driveways, as the board is familiar, we're proposing two driveways; on the north end of the site is an enter only driveway, and on the south end of the site is an exit only driveway.  Based on our revised traffic evaluation, I've concluded that those driveways will operate very efficiently and with little delay, either for motorists that are turning into on the enter only driveway or motorists that are waiting to turn out of the exit only driveway, based on the volumes that we've identified in the report.  And I would point out that we have accounted for other developments at the request of the Mr. Jahr, and those include Chestnut Village, Enclave, and the Ken Smith site, based on the report that was done for the village when you were evaluating the zoning across the village in terms of allowing residential development in areas that were not previously zoned for residential development.  Now, if there are no questions in terms of traffic generation and the associated impacts, which I believe will be insignificant   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I do have a couple of questions.
THE WITNESS:  Sure.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You're a professional guy, you're your trip generator guy? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So you've indicated that it's the use of suburban developments that drive those trip numbers.  So how do you make an adjustment for the roadway network that is significantly different than what would appear in this suburban environment?  What's the adjustment?  Because this is    I mean, I'm sure that you would agree, and I know when you and I have this conversation about this particular roadway network on different occasions, it's a difficult roadway and never really designed to absorb all of this traffic.  What is the adjustment or how does that work when the roadway network is, you're using these trip generators, it's suburban, it's very different than what we have on Board Street, Hudson, Leroy, and Passaic.  So is there an adjustment?  How does that work? 
THE WITNESS:  For the roadway network itself, so not this site or its driveways but for the roadway network itself, you make no adjustments.  You have to identify and establish and quantify the existing conditions along those surrounding roads; existing conditions in terms of traffic volumes, geometry, lane geometry and how many lanes there are along the various roads.  So the only adjustment that could be made in terms of the estimated trips and the subsequent analysis is if I were to take what I've estimated in terms of trip generation for this development and reduced those numbers down, so make them less than what I've estimated to account for the readily available mass transit that will serve this site.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So the trip generator guy never took into account this scenario?  It never took into account this particular scenario, so it is I suppose conjecture somewhat as to what the end result might be.
THE WITNESS:  Respectfully, mayor, I disagree with you.  You have a two-step process, if you will.  One is identifying the existing road conditions by way of volume and lane geometry.  Those are independent of what is going to occur at the site.  Then you have to identify what the site is going to add in terms of volume to that adjacent road network.  The fact that most of the ITE database for apartments is for suburban locations means that applying them to this particular site and this particular context results in the development generating more traffic to the road network and resulting in greater impact to the road network than what I believe is going to reasonably occur, because I believe this development is going to generate less traffic than what we've estimated, because it is in an urban setting that's next to transit.  So, in the suburban location, anyone to get anywhere is driving their car.  In this context, in this particular site, some people are not going to drive everywhere or get everywhere by driving their car, some people are going to actually walk to shop downtown, maybe some may even work downtown.  I would imagine those that are going to walk are going to walk to the train station to hop a train to the city.  So that results in less traffic generated by the site than what I've estimated.  So it's a conservative analysis in terms of addressing impact from this site.  The impacts that have been identified and are on my revised evaluation, are more than what I believe will actually occur.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
(Continuing)  So, let's turn to parking now, because I believe that's been   
MS. PATIRE:  Can I ask a question?
THE WITNESS:  Sure.
MS. PATIRE:  So, in your experience, how many of these proposed site plans in a somewhat urban community, as you call it, have you, with your company or previous companies have worked on and given estimates to as far as traffic counts? 
THE WITNESS:  Oh, quite a few.
MS. PATIRE:  So is there anything, I don't know, within in a Montclair, a Summit or some sort of downtown like we have that you worked on that you provided an estimate, and have you ever provided an estimate and you have been wrong? 
THE WITNESS:  My estimates, when I've had projects in that kind of context, like Hoboken, Jersey City, as two examples   
MS. PATIRE:  Uh huh.
THE WITNESS:     of projects that come to mind immediately, my estimates have always been higher than what has actually occurred, because we're not trying to take any credits for mass transit or alternative modes of transportation besides a car, like walking or bicycling, when we do our reports.
MS. PATIRE:  True, but I would argue that Hoboken and Jersey City may have a different clientele and a very young, hip kind of community.  So in Ridgewood, I was curious, if you worked on anything like a suburban/urban area that has had the train station, this kind of level of apartments, etc., that you've done?  You're not comparing us to Jersey City or Hoboken? 
THE WITNESS:  Not at all.
MS. PATIRE:  I think that's different, I think that's a lot of young people who may not have cars because they commute into New York City and work, again for you and your wife that want to move here or whatnot, have you worked on any in a town like ours? 
MR. WELLS:  For the record, let me emphasize a point that I think that he's made but make sure we all understand it.  The counts that he's given you do not include the adjustment that he would make in Jersey City or Hoboken or Ridgewood.  In other words, the numbers that we have, if you assume they're higher, like they would be in the suburbs, are still de minimis.  We're telling you it will be lower than that.  He's not including it.
MS. PATIRE:  No, I'm just curious, is there anything that you worked on that has been somewhat of our area and given counts, and, again, I've been wrong on my job sometime.  It's okay.  I was curious if there was anything you either underestimated on in terms of things that you've done? 
THE WITNESS:  None that come to mind.  I have worked for the same company that's doing this project.  We did do a mixed use development which had two apartment buildings over in Fair Lawn on 208.  I don't know if you've ever been to Fair Lawn Commons.  A really nice development.  I'm going to get into some of the parking testimony later, we actually did some parking research at one of those buildings, which I will present to you in a moment, and compared that to what ITE has for parking information for apartments, and it was lower than what ITE suggests. So there's none that come to mind, other than Fair Lawn Commons, but I can assure you I've worked on a lot of projects and I'm sure there are some.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Just for the record, could you just give us the address of Fair Lawn Commons, address and location specifically.
MS. PATIRE:  It is a little different, you're not really walking to the train on 208.
THE WITNESS:  You know what, the name of the project is Fair Lawn Promenade, I don't know why I always say Fair Lawn Commons, which is right next door.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  "Promenade" sounds so much nicer.
THE WITNESS:  It does.  And it's One Promenade, right off of 208.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That's what I wanted to get to.  That's right on 208, basically it's right there, which is a little bit different.
MS. PATIRE:  And you could walk to the Radburn section from that.
THE WITNESS:  You could, and you could walk to the downtown too.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So I just wanted to expand on what my point was, and I appreciate my colleague bringing this up again.  My point is that you could have a suburban trip generator based on a suburban network and the result might seem de minimis, but when you take that same number and put it onto a more compromised or different roadway network, the impact could be actually worse.  So that count is relative to the roadway, and I'm just asking:  Would you agree with that? 
THE WITNESS:  That's a different discussion.  So, if you're talking about impacts on a roadway, what we've done is we've estimated the trips and put them onto Broad Street Court and we've identified impacts.  Those identified impacts are conservative, because what we've identified I believe overstate what the impact is and that the actual impacts will be less. Now, let's just talk about what's the most compromised intersection or one of the most compromised intersections in the village, Ridgewood Avenue and Broad Street.  So, if you look at that intersection, there's no question, I wouldn't stand here before you and tell you that intersection works great, because we all know it doesn't.  My revised traffic evaluation, my original traffic evaluation way back when we were in the zoning/rezoning portion of this application, not before this board but before the governing body, we all recognized that intersection has its challenges and there's delays during peak hours.  What I am respectfully submitting to you is that we will impact that intersection, there's no question about it, but it's to the order of one additional vehicle every four minutes, at most, going through that intersection in any direction that would be attributed to this project. I will again state, that level of traffic generation, no one on this board will be able to perceive a noticeable difference.  Will delays go up because of that small traffic increase at that intersection?  Without question, they will, but I would characterize that as not a significant impact.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  To your point, mayor, you know, I'm concerned.  You are making a bad situation worse and you're saying it's de minimis.  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the de minimis issue, when it's really bad to begin with.  And that's where I'm having some difficulty.  And I think that's the point you're making? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Well, you know, you're making the best case scenario, once every four minutes, so that's just   
MR. WELLS:  Can I remind us of that legal context form.  Remember, traffic congestion elsewhere, even if it was stalled completely, is not relevant for denial of this application, it's relevant only for the issue of do we have any fair share of that.  And when we say it's "de minimis," it's so little as compared to the improvement that the village would have to make as to not, that's what we're talking about.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Just for the record, I didn't raise the issue of Broad and Ridgewood Avenue, Mr. Disario did, so   
MR. WELLS:  It's in the report.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I know, but specifically my question was relative to right there, right on site.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  Fair enough.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I did not bring up   
MR. WELLS:  So you're talking about the access points on Broad Street? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  He'll address that.
THE WITNESS:  In our revised traffic evaluation showed that the proposed access points to this site will operate at very good levels of service. So, levels of service go from A to F; "A" being very good operations, "F" being not so good. And the proposed driveways, referring to my report, just so the record has some detail, the two proposed driveways during the weekday morning and evening peak hours will operate at a level of service B or better, with a delay of 13 seconds or less for any movements associated with those driveway intersections. I can tell you that that is a very efficient operation that we anticipate for those proposed driveways.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And then one last question, and this goes to our colleague's comment earlier about if you've been wrong. Under what circumstances would you go back to a site and study the trips generated after the fact and compare those to what you estimated would occur before? 
THE WITNESS:  Two instances come to mind.  One is if we get a site approved and it's built, and then something subsequent to that is done to the site, like an expansion.   For instance, I worked on a Stop & Shop supermarket in Elizabeth along North Avenue.  It was approved, it was built, it was functional. And then they wanted to come back and add, it was a futile attempt, but they wanted to add gasoline sales to that study.  So we did a subsequent traffic study, and I was able to then count the actual traffic being generated by that supermarket as part of an additional traffic study that was done later on for an application to add fuel sales at that site. The other instance that comes to mind is if a development application is approved, there's been times, although infrequent, where a condition has been part of that approval where a follow up traffic study would be done to test, if you will, either assumptions of trip generation or what impacts will actually or have actually occurred post development.
MR. MARTIN:  That's exactly where I was going there.  There's certain drive throughs and sometimes you cannot make a left turn, sometimes there's a lookback for six months to find out if there's conditions that cause a danger; if there is, then there's a "no left turn" sign that's put there.
MR. WELLS:  MR. MARTIN is correct, in those few rare instance you go back and study it, it's usually tied to something that everybody said probably isn't necessary but might be and a changing direction or a sign or something, and then it becomes conditioned on whatever it actually turns out to be.
MR. MARTIN:  I think COUNCILMAN VOIGT raised a question before, I know Tommy liked to say you cannot deny, you cannot deny.  Moving farther beyond that point is the conditions in terms of pro rata share and then nexus and then things like that, same analogy like this, condition of approval as opposed to a denial in certain instances.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So conditions of approval, supposing they don't agree with the conditions of approval, what do we do then? 
MR. MARTIN:  Hypothetically, you know, it's part and parcel of the approval, but there's one thing   
MR. WELLS:  Just we need to put it    we need to cross that particular "T." 
Somebody, and our expert is telling you we're insignificant, would have to say we're significant, and then would have to propose an improvement, and then we'd have to figure out how much we're impacting that site, and then we'd have a pro rata share of that improvement.  So those are a lot of steps the village has to take, which our position is, it would make no sense.
MR. MARTIN:  I was being a little ambiguous.  I was going back with the traffic expert in terms of ingress/egress which is on tract.
MR. WELLS:  Absolutely.
MR. MARTIN:  I used the analogy to the analogy of the nexus to the   
MR. WELLS:  If those were F movements, not B plus as they have been testified and needed to be changed, those would be totally appropriate for you to say, "Oh, no, you can't have a left turn out," or "You have to put a traffic light out front because it's a failing movement." 
They're not.
MR. MARTIN:  You understand, in terms correctly on the ingress/egress, and the time, and the peak hours and things like that, if something was agreed upon, Mr. Jahr is here as well, that you would feel comfortable and the applicant agrees to, there can be further analysis post construction.
MR. WELLS:  Sure.  Sure.  But, again, there's no evidence that supports any of that.
MR. MARTIN:  I'm just saying that you can condition, is the word I was talking of.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  To continue the cliffhanger, what were the results of the counts, were you off the mark or spot on or   
MR. WELLS:  I'm glad you remembered to ask that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I want to know.
MR. MARTIN:  I'm guessing he was right around where it should be, but go ahead.
THE WITNESS:  The supermarket that I referred to, we were pretty much spot on, and not only in terms of what we estimated for the actual traffic generation of the supermarket, but also the movements into and out of that site, how many vehicles made a right off of North Avenue versus how many vehicles came in off of Route 27.  So I was pretty happy with that one.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  How about the other one? 
THE WITNESS:  The other example I gave was just in a general context that there can be, and I've been involved, and I don't know any specifics that are coming to mind right now, where a board would attach a condition to an approval that would require a follow up study.  I don't have any specifics that comes to mind, Mr. Chairman, but another thing that just came into my mind is, a lot of times, either at a site driveway, or, let's say, at an off site intersection, they'll be a discussion of a traffic signal and whether one is needed or not.  So a board can approve a site with a condition that once it's built and fully operational, a follow up study is done to determine whether or not the actual volumes in the future with the development built and operational warrant installation of a traffic signal, but none come to mind specifically.
MS. PATIRE:  Can I ask one other question? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Please.
MS. PATIRE:  I have no idea, because this is not my area of expertise, was it ever looked at where you come out to make a right turn only versus going left? 
THE WITNESS:  We did not look at that, because the application   
MS. PATIRE:  The applicant? 
THE WITNESS:  The application is for full access, and we would respectfully request full access.  And based on my evaluation, a left turn out of the exit only driveway is not going to be an issue operationally.
MS. PATIRE:  Yeah, it's just, again, I know, you do things in the village and in certain areas we have right only, left turn only, again, that's for safety, that's a narrow street, cars park on that side, there's a gym there, there's a church there, there's things going on, so it is a tight street, and to have two way traffic, you're going to be queuing, because you're going to be queueing from Ridgewood Avenue certain times of the day, whether it's rush hour or whatnot, so I was asking about that.
MR. WELLS:  Let him explain level of service again, because it's when the level of service, remember what he said is a B plus; like a D or an F, that means that you can't get out that they start to talk about signals or left turn out, so maybe you can explain why it wouldn't be required here.
THE WITNESS:  Yes, and as Tom said, if we evaluated that left turn out from the proposed exit driveway and it was a level of service F and it was failing, then I think it would be an appropriate discussion to talk about prohibiting left turns out.  But that's certainly not the case with the revised traffic evaluation.  Everything that you've said in terms of your concerns with S. Broad Street, on street parking, the narrow lane width, to me, and I take a different opinion to a lot of my colleagues in my field, I think all those things are a good thing, because they force traffic to slow down.  Now, that's not to suggest that everyone who drives up and down Broad Street drives slowly, but the more you have by way of either on street parking or narrow widths, the more vehicles tend to drive slowly.  I can take you to a suburban location again, classic example, in the RSIS, which we'll get to in a second, which governs residential development in the state, that's geared primarily towards suburban development.  And it's perfectly fine to have a residential subdivision with a 30 foot wide street with single family homes with two car garages and driveways that can fit another two cars.  So what you inevitably have is everyone not parking on the street, because they're either in the garage or the driveways, and you have 30 foot wide roadways with no parking on them and people speed down them.  I live in a development like that in South Brunswick.  My philosophy, in terms of really calming traffic, is that roads should be narrower, should have on street parking, and all the things that make sense to calm traffic down and reduce speeds. Everything you said, they don't concern me in terms of what we're proposing in terms of for access points, and I think they're a good thing. If you removed the on street parking on Broad Street near the site, I think you would see travel speeds increase, because people will get a greater sense of comfort because they have a nice wider lane to travel in.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think you'd see them sitting in traffic as they are now, stopped and queuing at all of the intersections.  It's not even a wide enough street to get that much speed up in the first place. And I have a question, while you're on that subject.
THE WITNESS:  Can I address what you just said, please? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Sure.
THE WITNESS:  I agree with you, during peak hours, there's going to be intersections where there's queuing; during off peak hours, where you don't have an issue with queuing, that's when people tend to drive faster.  And the more you have in terms of narrower lanes and on street parking and different activity along the roadway, that's when people will tend to slow down.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I understand you feel that way. 
Is it a level of service A or B or a passing level of service now because there's no guarantee, I mean it's a hypothetical, so to say it's a positive level OF service ingress and egress all of that, currently there's no way to even really know.  So you're saying you foresee, you imagine empty nesters   
MR. WELLS:  Can I just object.  He "foresees," he "imagines," "no way to know," he is an expert who has been qualified before the board, so it's more than imagine and foresee.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Is he an expert in who is going to rent the apartments? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes, he is an expert testifying with his expertise in traffic in estimating how many trips will come from this project, and he's given you his whole basis for that. 
So, in all due respect, it's really disrespectful for you to just say you have no idea and you are imagining.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I didn't say you have no idea   
MR. WELLS:  Well, you said he was imagining.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I said it is hypothetical, because I'm saying to you, I find it    I'm curious to see how it is anybody can guarantee who's going to rent the apartments, how they're going to drive in and out of them.  I understand he's an expert, he's measured this in all of the   
MR. WELLS:  That's what experts do, and you have an expert   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:     you have an expert, and presumably he'll talk to you about this a little bit and your attorney can certainly talk to you about it, but you have to have some basic respect for the expertise that is being presented to you.
THE WITNESS:  Let me just object here, because Tom is a good lawyer and he's representing the applicant.  Just so everyone is clear, there's a prescribed method to preparing a traffic study.  It's a quantitative process that's empirically based.  There's isn't a hypothetical here.  The hypothetical is you make a guess that's not rooted in any type of empirical data.  Everything that traffic engineering is, it's unlike other sciences.  You know, you give me a gas and you subject it to a different pressure and temperature, I can tell what the volume of that gas is going to be.  Traffic engineering is different, it's empirically based, so everything that we do is based on going out and collecting data.  The estimated trips for this development is based on empirical data that has been collected at other apartment developments throughout the country.  That is with which the basis that any traffic engineer, whether it's me, whether it's Mr. Jahr or someone else that appears before you, is going to use to estimate how much traffic.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I don't dispute the empirical data, I don't dispute the evidence, I'm completely well aware of what evidence is and how it's gathered and the definition of the word, I'm also somebody that utilizes these streets and these roadways every day, and I was going to present you with, you know, a question. I know many empty nesters that live in the village that perhaps would be interested in some sort of a development like this, but I also have the ones that I know, for example, like my in laws who live here, drive to the doctor every day, you know, and their friends go to the doctor every day, in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening.  Say that's just one place they go; the grocery store.  I do agree that there will be    I understand the evidence and the data about walking and all the rest of that, but I wonder if, when you discuss who will be living in these apartments, who will be the renters, you know, I have a concern about that and that level about how it actually will play out in reality when it comes to fruition.
THE WITNESS:  And in all I've submitted to you for your consideration is that this development may actually generate less traffic than what we've estimated and used for the analysis based on the empirical data with which we are prescribed to use to estimate that traffic.  That's all. 
MS. PATIRE:  So the empirical data, regardless whether you live in New Jersey or Ohio, it's the same number? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MS. PATIRE:  Correct.
THE WITNESS:  Any other questions relative to trip generation or impact? 
MR. WELLS:  Keep going.
THE WITNESS:  Okay, so I'm going to turn to parking now. 
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Jahr, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. JAHR:  I do.
J O H N   J A H R,      
Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. MARTIN:  And you're an expert in the field of traffic engineering, correct? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes, sir.
MR. MARTIN:  And parking as well? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. WELLS, satisfied? 
MR. WELLS:  No, let's voir dire a little more, since we did a thorough voir dire in terms of just licenses and education and all the rest, if you want to have him testify.
MR. JAHR:  Certainly.
MR. WELLS:  Let's just make the record complete.
MR. JAHR:  In order to make the record complete, understood. So, I'm a traffic consultant.  I have been for 27 years.  I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Rutgers University.  I am a licensed Professional Transportation Planner and I'm a Traffic Signal Operation Specialist, both certifications by the Professional Transportation Board. I serve this board and I serve many other boards throughout the State of New Jersey and have done so for pretty much the last 27 years. 
MR. MARTIN:  So stipulated? 
MR. WELLS:  Fine.  I just wanted to get all that on the record too.
MR. MARTIN:  That's a good thing. 
Go ahead, Mr. Jahr.
MR. JAHR:  Certainly.  And Mr. Disario, I don't want you to get to be done with traffic yet, I would like to make sure the record is clear on the traffic.  You're about three quarters of the way through.  I'm sure at this point just take a little break for everybody.  I'm sure that the applicant and yourself are certainly feeling the frustration that the board has with traffic, notwithstanding the legal arguments, I understand that, I've read your letter and the board letter.  Just for the sake of sensitivity, okay, the people that live here in Ridgewood and those of us who visit, there is a significant amount of frustration.  That doesn't necessarily translate into a denial.  We heard a lot of talk about denial.  Okay.  I think the point here is just to have, from my point of view, my board has been great and your questions are absolutely on track and they're very, very good.  What you have to understand is there is significant frustration in the village because of traffic congestion.  And it's not unfair and not unreasonable for the board to feel this frustration and share it with you.  I can assure you, if you get this project approved and you build those units, all the people that live there are going to feel just like all these people.  All right.  It's frustrating.  Only way that doesn't happen, maybe, as I have suggested, that we have a bona fide discussion about possible mitigation measures, if they're appropriate and if, as you've said   
MR. WELLS:  All right, let me just, here's where we got to stop here, and I know Mr. Disario invited it because he said ask questions during the middle of the testimony, but, Mr. Jahr, you just testified, you didn't ask any questions, you just gave an opinion, and that's okay, we're for all conversation, but we need to get his testimony in, and then if you have a question along the way, you can ask a question, and then by all means ask questions, and at some point, if you have a different opinion, testify.  But it's getting, this is a crazy thing, because he's now just telling us what he thinks.
MR. MARTIN:  He laid the foundation, now he's going to go into a question.
MR. WELLS:  Good.
MR. JAHR:  Thank you for helping that, and I apologize. MR. WELLS:  That okay.  I'm just saying, now ask questions.
MR. JAHR:  Just to keep order and I think that was a good point for that piece of order. Just to keep order, I think that we can use a little more explanation on a couple of things and I'm going to try to help out with this. Your conservative numbers and your historical numbers and the historical information provided, I think everybody kind of lost    there was kind of a loss there in some way.  Could you please give us a little bit more explanation and maybe in an example form, all right, of what you mean when you say conservative numbers and maybe provide an example so the board understands what you at with that.  I think that was kind of lost.  And I think you should also try and include some of your discussion about the historical, I think that's also very important to understand what the traffic volumes are here, because, again, I do agree with Mr. Disario on this point, the numbers are essentially low.
MR. WELLS:  Can I ask as a clarification, when you're talking about historical, you're saying like Brogan Cadillac and right now, the use of it? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  Those are relevant questions, I think it's understood.
MR. JAHR:  I think they're important to understand top down.  And I wouldn't want you to finish with traffic yet, because we also want you to talk about your recommendations included in your report, before we go to parking for traffic.
MR. MARTIN:  Just to frame it, the historical numbers and what? 
MR. JAHR:  Conservative traffic volumes and historical numbers.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  Those two to start with.
MR. MARTIN:  Are you with us? 
MR. DISARIO:  I am.
MR. WELLS:  Good.  Thanks.
MR. DISARIO:  In terms of conservative numbers, I've testified that we've estimated 28 more peak hour trips two way and 37 weekday peak hour trips two way that would be generated by this development.  I believe those numbers are higher than what will actually occur, because some people that live in this development will not drive during those times, they'll walk.  So the numbers are likely going to be less at the driveways than what we've estimated. So in terms of using the word "conservative," that's what I meant. In terms of historical activity at the site, it used to be a car dealership. I don't have estimates of what the car dealership would have generated, but I can tell you, and I'm sure if all of you lived here, which I'm sure many if not all of you have when Brogan was opened, it generated traffic in and out of the site during the morning, during the evening.  So it would have been generating traffic, if it were open today.  So if you look at a net difference between what Brogan generated and what we're proposing, it's probably even less than what we've accounted for in our study, because we've assumed that this site currently generates no traffic.  What's occurring on the site right now, and I don't have the information, it was in a very old study which I didn't bring with me this evening, it was part of the rezoning process, we actually did count the existing traffic into and out of the site that's attributed to the commuter parking.  I don't have exact numbers, John, maybe you have that very old report, but from what I recall, it was on the order of about 30 to 50 cars that park on the site right now that are commuters.  So in the morning, you can have 30, 50 cars coming in, and in the evening you have those 30 to 50 cars leaving.  So when you look at that difference compared to what's proposed versus what the site is currently generating, there's not going to be that big net difference to the road network as what my study suggests, because, again, we've assumed the site's generating nothing and we haven't done a comparison in terms of what Brogan used to generate.
MR. WELLS:  Can I ask a question? 
MR. DISARIO:  Sure.
MR. WELLS:  We haven't asked for credit for that, for the comparison of historical, but it's possible that there's literally more trips being generated by the present commuter parking lot than what we're asking for?
MR. DISARIO:  It's possible, yes.
MR. WELLS:  Thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Can I just jump in one second. 
Except for the current use where there's commuter parking where you're talking about? 
MR. DISARIO:  Yes, right now   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  On its busiest days, and I'm just throwing it out there because it's relevant, the busiest days of the week for that particular intersection would be Saturday and Sunday, because that's the restaurant, that's shopping, and Sunday mass let's out multiple times throughout the day and it's intense, but that location on Saturday and Sunday generates zero.  So I just wanted to kind of make it clear, that that's not always the case, so just   
MR. DISARIO:  And I don't disagree with you, and the residents, if you're inclined to grant approval and the apartment building is built as proposed, a lot of those residents wouldn't drive to downtown, they would walk, which is a good thing.  It's something that I think this board recognizes as a good planning tenet, and it's a good use in terms of land use, to locate residential development near Central Business Districts and mass transit.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Could I   
MR. DISARIO:  Let me just say one more thing, please, because John was kind enough to fish out a very old traffic study that we did that quantified the amount of commuter parking that was occurring.  So, during the weekday morning peak hour, and let me just reference the study.  It's a study entitled "Traffic Evaluation Proposed Residential Development, 150 S. Broad Street, Village of Ridgewood," last revised, November 22nd, I can't believe it has been this long, 2011.  So as part of that study, we did count the driveways.  And for the weekday morning peak hour, 42 vehicles came in and 20 left, for a total two way trips of 62.  And during the weekday evening peak hour, 21 vehicles came in and 34 vehicles exited, for a total of two way trips of 55.  So those are greater than what the proposed residential development would generate in terms of driveway volumes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  You have a couple of tables in your report, Tables 3 and 4, that look at delays in the S. Broad, E. Ridgewood Avenue intersection.
MR. DISARIO:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So just a couple, help me understand this.  I mean, and go to Table four and take a look at it.  As an example, you have the southbound direction and you have obviously you have a level of F and you have 134 seconds.  What is that number? 
MR. DISARIO:  Correct, in the existing 2017 existing conditions.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  And so then in 2019, your projection is 245 seconds? 
MR. DISARIO:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So I want to make sure I understand, that's four minutes or more? 
MR. DISARIO:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. 
And then if you build the multifamily housing, it goes to 339 seconds? 
MR. DISARIO:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.  So just I'm doing simple math here, you said    I want to give you a different interpretation.  You said it's only one car, it's maybe three percent.
MR. WELLS:  Ask him a question.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  One car, three percent.  So I'm looking at the numbers here and I'm going, okay, well, you're increasing that intersection by 40 percent in time.  Okay.  So why wouldn't you be required to pay for that extra time that is required for people to stop, to stay there?  You're saying three percent, I'm saying okay, it's got to be 40 percent.  If we do something at an intersection, it's not three percent, it's 40 percent of whatever we do, from a cost standpoint. 
MR. DISARIO:  It's a very simple answer, and I mean no disrespect, so please don't take it that way.  The issues at that intersection aren't caused by the proposed development, they're caused by the existing volumes at that intersection.  So, if you wanted to identify an improvement at that intersection, and Mr. WELLS has made reference to discussions in the past of a signal at that location, that signal and the warranting of a signal is being driven by the existing volumes, not by the minimal amount of additional traffic that would be added by this development.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, I'm saying, so I'm not sure you're getting my point here.
MR. WELLS:  He got it.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  You've increased that intersection by 100 seconds, based on putting your building there.  These are your numbers, okay.  You know, 339 minus 244 is about 100, and then, you know, the denominator is 244 seconds.  So I'm looking at a 40 percent increase based on your development.  So I'm saying, okay, well, if it's 40 percent, whatever is done to that intersection from a cost standpoint, the onus is on you for 40 percent of that cost, not three percent of the cost.
MR. WELLS:  Except that's not how it's done.  I understand what you're saying.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Frankly, I don't know how it's done.
MR. WELLS:  Well, I do, and it's not.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I'm concerned that, you know, you are essentially increasing the time at that intersection by 40 percent over what it currently would be.
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Voigt, Mr. Jahr might be able to assist in terms of that.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  You're slightly ahead of my line of questioning.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay, sorry.
MR. JAHR:  And what I would say is I'd like to go down this road a little bit later with Mr. Disario, because there's some more information that he will be able to share with the board.  But I'd like to let him get through the traffic numbers, which I think we're pretty well done with, and I'd like to have him talk about his recommendations and conclusions, and then I'd like him to come back because I'd like to ask him some questions about how fair share is done. 
MR. WELLS:  I would really like that too.  I think it would make our record better.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I just wanted that on the record.
MR. WELLS:  No, I get it.  I understand Mr. Disario invited questions in the middle and I appreciate that, but we're going past little clarification questions, but you need to get that in and then let's talk about that.
MR. JAHR:  I'd like to have that discussion.
MR. MARTIN:  Would you just approach for a second.  I would like to speak to the Chair for just a second. (A sidebar discussion is held off the record.)  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Let's return to our seats.  We're going to go back on the record.  It's 10:00 p.m., and we're going to stop on this application right now and pick it up on April 4, 2017.  And I guess that will be without further notice.  You consent to it being carried to that date? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes, we do.  We do.  I would in all due respect to the board, and we understand your heavy schedule and the fact that there are a number of matters before you, and we certainly understand with MR. BRANCHEAU's imminent departure, there are other things you need to do tonight, but we would again request it be possible we be the only thing on the agenda so we can move on it efficiently.  It's hard on board members when a lot of time goes by in between witnesses and so forth, so we'll try to get that done that night.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure. 
Blais, did you have any questions for Mr.  Disario at all? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I do not.  The only questions I have are in the report, and so far I have no questions. I haven't heard the rest of his testimony, so there may be some as part of future testimony.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  All right.  So we're still on the cross of Mr. Disario, we'll pick up on that on April 4th, and it will start off with ending some of the traffic stuff and then continue with   
MR. WELLS:  I just want to correct the record.  We're actually not in cross, we're in this wild direct, we're   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Right, invited cross.
MR. WELLS:  Direct with invited midstream cross, so we'll get it organized and finished next time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right.  So you brought it upon yourself a little bit.
MR. DISARIO:  So I would anticipate that the actual formal cross won't be that much.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  You never know.
MR. WELLS:  It could be.
MR. DISARIO:  Wishful thinking.
MR. WELLS:  I'll say it on the record. We're inviting and encouraging Mr. Disario to talk with Mr. Jahr a little bit to maybe as much as possible   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure, that's always welcome.
MR. WELLS:     to understand each other in terms of his concerns and what we can do during the time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And they can discuss it amongst themselves. We'll continue the direct, and after we conclude the direct, we'll move to the cross. 
Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Disario.
MR. WELLS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you, MR. WELLS.
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
(Whereupon, this matter is continuing at a future date.  Time noted:  10:02 p.m.)

Council Referral of Ordinance 3579: Regulation of Institutional Uses and Public Utilities – Mr. Brancheau explained the purpose of the referral, the ordinance, and reviewed his draft letter. Board members asked questions about the ordinance and approved Mr. Brancheau's letter without any changes.
Draft Ordinance Addressing Miscellaneous Recommendations in Reexamination Report and in Zoning Officer Memoranda – Mr. Brancheau discussed the handout he provided Board members with mark-ups. He reviewed the documents and discussed the fixes in the language. The Board approved the document with changes.
Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from September 1, 2015 were approved as written.
Executive Session – The Board moved to Executive Session at 11:22 p.m. returned and adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
      
Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary
Date approved: July 3, 2018